Evil
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Sunday, October 29, 2006 14:39
VIEWED: 8182
PAGE 1 of 2
"Evil Empire"
"Axis of Evil"
"The Great Satan"
"Evil Islamofascists"
"Evil Crusade against Islam"
So, what is "Evil"?
Mr. Webster's book (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary) says:
-adj.1. Morally wrong or bad: WICKED. 2. Causing injury, ruin, or pain: HARMFUL. 3. Marked by or indicating future misfortune: OMINOUS. 4. Reputedly bad or blameworthy: INFAMOUS. 5. Marked by anger or spite: MALICIOUS.
-n 1. A cause of harm, misfortune, or destruction. 2. Something morally reprehensible: WICKEDNESS. 3. An evil power or force. 4. A source or cause of suffering, harm, and destruction.
Hmm. So a tree that falls on you and injures you is "an evil tree"? Or does evil, as opposed to harm, require a moral choice; a decision to act against the prevailing morality?
Is evil relative or absolute? Whould a Mayan who selfishly prevented his child from being sacrificed to insure good crops have been considered evil by the other Maya?
Is a man who cuts off your arm evil? What if he's a doctor and you had gangrene? What if he became a doctor because he enjoys cutting people up and wanted a way to do it legally?
Neo-Nazis think Hitler wasn't evil for causing WWII and the Holocast. Some folk think Truman was evil for A-bombing Japan. During WWII we buddied up to evil Josef Stalin to beat evil Hitler. Is "the lesser of two evils" sometimes actually the only choice?
How do we distinguish "evil" from "wrong", or "mistaken", or "won't understand what I know is right"?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Careful trainee, that sounds mighty socialist to this 1%-er!
Originally posted by Righteous9:
"The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few"
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being filthy rich, as I am, yeah, selfish is good.
Originally posted by citizen:
It is socialist, socialism is always evil, so 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm right there with ya, Righteous.
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.
Just funnin'with right-wing nonsense Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. Newbies abound
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I figured you were, but not a bad idea to make myself clear to anybody else reading the posts.
Chrisisall, not actually rich, just spiritually well-off.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Social programs are socialist, that they also happen in mostly Capitalist countries is an indication that those nations have intergrated some aspects of Socialism.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And, I'm right there with you too, Citizen.
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.
Chrisisall that's left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Naw, that was just on the top of my list...
Originally posted by Causal:
So...you can only do evil in God's name then?
Servin' the fluffy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And as the war rages on, his friends profit....coincidence? Intent?
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).
Who knows Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 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 "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, 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Timedout my *ss!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was in case the first 20 attempts didn't get thru. An fortunately not!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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!
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.
Quote:I'm not going to pull up ALL of your quotes, but I think we all get the idea.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
Cool! So you concede that the Bush Administration isn't evil. Argument over. I win.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, you mean like this?
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.
Quote:
Cool! So you concede that the Bush Administration isn't evil. Argument over. I win.
So...
Quote:Evil is what you think it is... wow, that's deep. But what IS your "moral sense"?
What is evil? It's what others do that offends my moral sense to the point that I say "That's evil".
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Capitalism is not based on selfishness, nor socialism on generosity.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
doublepost
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove, your statement that democrats are at least as evil or moreso is absolute rhetoric.
Kerry said he would have attacked Fallujah - fine.
I don't credit the democrats with a spine, and being politically expedient and voting for this war is disgusting I agree, but they did not have the facts about the WMDs the Whitehouse had, and they were not the one who orchestrated the invasion. They enabled it yes, but do you really think a democratic Government would have invaded Iraq in the wake of 9/11? What proof do you have of that?
Kerry would reinstitute the draft and try to match the suggestions by top generals that we had an overwhelming enough force to enforce the peace? Maybe that would have caused less bloodshed. Maybe there'd be less Americans and Iraqis dead now.
Can't argue with you about Clinton. He may have done more harm than good. He may in-fact be evil. But he was under assault for half of his presidency.
I know he signed nafta, I know he did nothing when millions were being slaughtered in africa, I know he helped to deregulate the media. All bad things, but its harder for me to outright say those decisions make him evil in the context of the political climate at the time. If you've got a bigger laundry list, I'd be interested.
But you can't argue that Clinton did more harm than Bush. I can't even see where'd you'd even begin to pull out those kind of figures. Did he pave the way to a Bush administration? Quite possibly. Are they on the same team? Maybe...I don't really think so, but I won't completely rule it out. The fact remains, the damage done during the respective presidencies is still unequivocable. If that is what you have to go on, don't tell me you'd rather have Bush in office than Clinton.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Not at all. The purpose of a corporation is to provide services to the people. Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people. But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.
But to characterize social programs as charity is a gross distortion. Social programs are about control, social engineering, design and manipulate. They're far less of charity than Al Qaeda. Charity is when you give selflessly without strings or motivation. In America, social programs never fit this bill, and I doubt they often do so elsewhere.
I'm not saying that social engineering is impossible or wrong, but that if one is supporting the idea, one should be straight about what one is supporting. If you support charity, I would think you'd be more in favor of the faith-based initiative than of social programs.
Edit
Capitalism is about other people. A corporation *is* other people. And I never said it was perfect, its in serious need of reform, needs constant reform, and more now than usual. I would say socialism needed reform, if I thought the patient could be saved, but I don't. imho
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
evil when he faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident
Signy,
Not faked. Johnson misrepresented the incident as being a military clash between the US and the VC, which it was not. It was some incident involving a fishing boat or something. But he didn't fake or creat an incident in the sense that Winston Churchill created the incident with the Lusitania. It's a minor distiction, in the end, Johnson knew that he was lying, and he lied to get us into the war.
Objectively, I'd say Johnson was much evil-er than the gulf of tonkin incident alone betrays.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No it isn't.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The purpose of a corporation is to provide services to the people.
Quote:Bollocks. Corporations have no interest in 'helping people'. They provide a service only where such a thing provides profit, profit is what corporations want, not to help people like fuzzy-happy altruistic organisations as you'd like to paint them.
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.
Quote:Large Multinational Corporations have no place in a healthy Capitalist society, but they and the Corporatist society they foster are the enevitable result of Capitalism, which is one of the reasons why Capitalism needs to be ballanced by Socialism and vice versa.
But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.
Quote:No to characterize social programs as less charity than a terrorist organisation is a gross distortion. Actually it's more than that, its utter lunacy.
But to characterize social programs as charity is a gross distortion. Social programs are about control, social engineering, design and manipulate. They're far less of charity than Al Qaeda. Charity is when you give selflessly without strings or motivation. In America, social programs never fit this bill, and I doubt they often do so elsewhere.
Lets pick a social program, the dol. Supports people looking for work and helps to find employment. Yes very insidious and evil, EVIL I tells ya.
The gross distortion is trying to portray corporations as perfectly altruistic happy bunnies hop hop hopping through happy capitalist land helping people and handing out 'wowy-pops'.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous,
Not arguing "democrats are more evil than republicans" I think there are points in US history in which one could argue this point solidly, but this isn't one of those points.
Democrat lack of spine doesn't prevent them from having big wars, again, look at the historical record. The US is several times more likely to go to war with a democrat at the helm.
I can argue that in one respect Clinton did more harm than Bush: He killed more people, both directly and indirectly. Sure, Bush did more damage to the institution of America (Clinton did plenty) But this is largely because he was standing on Clinton's shoulders (a) ie, Clinton had pushed it X-far, and so Bush could push it Y-far, because he had Clinton as a precedent, but also (b) Bush had a friendly congress. Clinton's greatest evil tilt was when he had congress in the first two years. After that, he was still evil, but more subdued because he had to compromise occassionally. Bush has had a solid grip on both houses, and so there has been little compromising of the agenda.
I have a big laundry list on Clinton, starting with WACO, but more importantly, sanctions on Iraq, gun-running to bosnia, bombing of several countries, vetoing the rwanda resolution (15 days or so into the conflict) and later, throwing more guns at the problem. Objectively, though, if you go digging in these people's pasts, you find that Clinton, like Bush, was seriously evil on a personal level long before he was president. Someone like Charles Manson is really a penny ante player next to these guys, totally morally bankrupt individuals.
And, on Kerry, I can't say definitively that things would have been worse. I was rationalizing the position of "why would the people vote to re-elect george bush?" Well, my point was, there wasn't a lot of choice. Kerry hadn't set him up as the peace candidate or the pro-business prosperity candidate, which imho are probably the two best ways to win an election. He was too busy playing tough guy, like bush.
Look at the past party-switch elections
Harding - peace platform
FDR - prosperity platform
Eisenhower - peace platform
Kennedy - charisma platform
Nixon - peace-ish platform
Carter - peace platform
Reagan - prosperity platform
Clinton - prosperity platform
Bush Jr - Jesus platform
If Kerry had promised to settle in iraq, and not "fight to win the peace" and had a real convincing plan to increase prosperity rather than "roll back tax cuts" than he probably would have gotten those extra couple million votes he would have needed to win.
Heinlein said "it's not your opponent that loses you the election, it's you're own supporters who stay home because you failed to convince them to come out"
Or as Al Sharpton said "*Who* wins the election doesn't really matter, what matters is *what* wins the election" meaning, the platform. The Kerry platform lost the election. Doesn't make Kerry evil. A different Kerry platform probably would have won, but that's not what the Kerry backers, his silent partners, wanted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's no inconsistancy between those statements. But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few. Perhaps its because I know so many kids with neurologically-bsed behavior problems, but I'm one of the few people on the board (perhaps Rue is another) who thinks that motivation should play little or no part in judging a person's actions. A person's basic motivation, their ability to judge and control their own behavior, usual intoxication status, ability think ahead and predict results in a broader context is visible through repeated actions over time. That's why I think there should be no such crime as "murder". I think the charge should be "causing the death of another" and then sentencing that person depending on their cumulative record. (which BTW G Bush would fail miserably.)
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.
Another comment tho- One of the uses of the word "evil" is to trigger moral outrage and punishment. Personally, I'm not so much into retribution. But I think BELIEF SYSTEMS can be evil and evil belief systems should get the death penalty.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't "cause" the war in Vietnam. But it was a major reason for the escalation that followed. Johnson knowingly hid key facts about the incident from the public, including the mitigating ircumstances that (1) We had just hours earlier covertly attacked N Vietnam, and (2) The Maddox had been in North Vietnamese waters just before being attacked. If the public knew the entire circumstances surrounding the incident, they would be far less likely to press for retaliation. It culd have been handled very differently and with a very different outcome.
Quote:
JOHNSON: Uh, the people that are calling me up, I just talked to a New York banker, I just talked to a fellow in Texas, they all feel that the Navy responded wonderfully and that's good. But they want to be damned sure I don't pull 'em out and run, and they want to be damned sure that we're firm. That's what all the country wants because Goldwater's raising so much hell about how he's gonna blow 'em off the moon... Because of the time difference between Washington and the Tonkin Gulf, and the time needed to transmit and receive messages from the remote naval forces involved, this sequence of President Johnson telephone calls on August begins at a moment when Washington was as yet unaware of the claimed second attack. McNamara's statement in the 9:43 AM. conversation that "this ship is allegedly to be attacked tonight" is highly significant-it means that Washington was already operating on the basis of the radio intercepts mistakenly attributed to August 4th. Equally important, LBJ and McNamara discuss retaliatory action against North Vietnam in spite of the fact that no attack has yet occurred.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm
Quote:Yes lies, and yes cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And no benefit to anyone that I can see. China did not have imperial ambitions. The immediate follow-on was not a massive invasion by the Chinese into Southeast Asia, nor was there large-scale massacre of South Vietnamese.
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.
One of the beneficiaries of our intervention was, of all people, Pol Pot.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.
As I understand this argument, if two men vote to rob a third, this cannot be evil. After all, the majority of people involved benefited.
Similarly, discrimination against members of a minority group benefits members of the majority.
And what about acts that did not bring any benefit to anybody?
I suspect the honest definition of "evil" would be "a person or act I really dislike".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah... credit me with a little more thought than THAT!
Are the two men and their families starving? Are the majority depriving a minority of basic needs to meet their "requirements" for luxury and ease? My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.
Now I know the first thing that libertarians will say is... "But that destroys individual effort! Because if people get what they need regardless of effort, then nobody will do anything!" That's a false assumption of human character. Humans actually have a NEED to be productive because it gives them a sense of control over their environment. I think what destroys individual effort more than anything is to have to labor under someone else's direction and then have the fruits of your labor taken away for someone else's benefit. Nothing destroys the work ethic like slavery. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What about fire? It destroys life and lays waste to everything in its path, but in so doing it clears a path for new growth. Floods, for all the damage they cause to human lives, deposit fresh sediment and fertile soil. A nuke demolishes all complex life in its path, but the radiation tends to be good for plants.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
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.
Schweitzer's stance seems to require one to "de-villify" the term "evil." Schweitzer's "evil" isn't a willful force to be stopped, but a necessary force that must exist in balance with what he terms "good."
(Much like how I define the Force in Star Wars as being the manifestation of Creation [the Light Side] and Destruction [the Dark Side]. The Dark Side isn't "evil," it can just lends itself best to destruction, and repays its servants in kind [with disease, scars, and a rapid degenerative death that can only be staved off by further predation], while the Light Side creates and is created by life, which it nurtures and sustains [Jedi tend to live long and healthy lives, and can continue to exist beyond death, sustained by the Force itself]. Neither side can be eliminated, nor should they be; the Dark Side is as vital as the Light.)
Maybe this highlights the semantic problem: the word "evil" can be used for so many different concepts.
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove,
thanks for clearing some of that up.
I would truly be interested in knowing what it was Clinton did when he had both houses backing him that was evil - I'm not doubting it out of hand, just truly wondering if this is an idealogical rift or 'evil' that we can agree upon.
I don't think that saying 'there are points in history when you can say the democratic party was eviler than the republican party' is fair. The Democratic party used to be the regressive party. I know that. I could care less about the frigging title of either party, but about their current and recent platforms, and current values. Right now the democratic party is far more progressive than the Republican party, far more adherant to civil rights, far more about the middle class and the poor.
That being said, many democrats are career politicians working corporate agendas. The difference though, no matter how you slice it, is that they depend upon a voter base that cares about civil rights and social justice. They can't continue to hold office if they lose the more progressive wing of their voters...even if they themselves are machiavelian, they do not have the lee-way to do what a Reupblican congress can.
As I understand it, or heard it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Johnson lost support from his own party because of vietnam and that was at least part of the reason he didn't run for a second term. I may be wrong here, but I think that's right. I also think its correct that Roosavelt tried to water down the Supreme Court but met with opposition from his own party, and gave up.
You can only stray so far from your platform.
The Bush administration's advantage is that its platform is terror and hate. Hell, when that's what you ran on, your base will let you get away with...well, murder.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: 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.
SignyM: There's no inconsistancy between those statements.
Excuse me while I state "Bull!"
Quote:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.
So many people depriving a few of their needs, RESULTING in special privileges for the many isn't evil? It would be alright for everyone else to rob and kill all the red-heads (just an example folks, I'm not a red-headophobe, and not suggesting any anti-red-head movement) and divide the loot?
On the other hand, although a hypothetical politician's presumed lying caused (in your opinion)hundreds of thousands of deaths with no benefit, would his actions not qualify as evil if they resulted in no special privileges for the few?
Maybe you would like to try expressing your opinion even more clearly next time?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, another "timed out" that was... not!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I already addressed this at length in a previous post. Maybe you would like to try reading my posts and expressing an opinion or your own, instead of playing the Grand Inqusitor? After all, since YOU brought up the whole concept of "evil" and threw the word around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, I would presume you have SOME sort of informed opinion about the word that you use so liberally!
Excuse me while I state "Bull!" ...
So many people depriving a few of their needs, RESULTING in special privileges for the many isn't evil? It would be alright for everyone else to rob and kill all the red-heads (just an example folks, I'm not a red-headophobe, and not suggesting any anti-red-head movement) and divide the loot? Maybe you would like to try expressing your opinion even more clearly next time?
Or then again... mebbe not! Possibly you have NO coherent thoughts about your own moral sense. Maybe it's just a random mix of what you were trained into in childhood swirled with stochastic experiences and your momentary psychological state... whether you had just had a good meal and a whiskey, whether childhood symbols were involved, if you had a bad experience in the past with some aspect of a current event... the kind of non-thinking that absolves you from any sort of responsibility for your own moral choices, perhaps?
I noticed that when you don't have a rational reply to something I post- about Lyndon Johnson, for example- you get all snarky and personal.
I think I've made more than enough of an effort to have a reasonable discussion with you and you refuse to be part of it, so at this point I see no reason to reply to your posts.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rolling up a couple of items:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.
So anyone who puts their self-interest ahead of that of the body politic is evil in YOUR system. Okay.
Quote:
Possibly you have NO coherent thoughts about your own moral sense. Maybe it's just a random mix of what you were trained into in childhood swirled with stochastic experiences and your momentary psychological state... whether you had just had a good meal and a whiskey, whether childhood symbols were involved, if you had a bad experience in the past with some aspect of a current event...
And perhaps that's what you are doing also, to a degree. You've been trying to provide an objective, unambiguous, definition of what you consider evil, and have had to repeatedly modify or clarify it in this thread, based on other people's comments. I doubt that you, or anyone else, can come up with such a definition.
Your perception of evil is personal to you, as is every one else's. Regardless of the logical rules you try to apply, it still based to a large degree on your individual mix of childhood training, experience, and psychological state. Since most of us here have basically the same background(dominated by various splinters of the Judeo-christian ideas of morality) we tend to agree, generally, on what is evil. But since we don't have exactly the same background and psychological makeup, we disagree on the details. Perhaps this opinion puts me in the moral relativist camp.
Quote:
I think I've made more than enough of an effort to have a reasonable discussion with you and you refuse to be part of it...
Interesting. I feel like I've gotten a good bit out of it. I noted coming in that I had plenty of questions and not many answers. Now I still have questions but also have more perspectives to consider.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.
As I understand this argument, if two men vote to rob a third, this cannot be evil. After all, the majority of people involved benefited.
Similarly, discrimination against members of a minority group benefits members of the majority.
And what about acts that did not bring any benefit to anybody?
I suspect the honest definition of "evil" would be "a person or act I really dislike".
Nah... credit me with a little more thought than THAT!
Are the two men and their families starving? Are the majority depriving a minority of basic needs to meet their "requirements" for luxury and ease? My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.
I was questioning the definition you proposed, which said nothing about the prior distribution of resources. The definition was purely majoritarian: An act is evil if it hurts more people than it helps.
It may be that your opinion is not accurately stated by the definition given above, in which case I can only guess what it is. I suspect your views to be egalitarian: An act is evil if it leaves people more varied in their good or bad fortune. By this argument, the poor may virtuously steal from the rich, as this will lead to less variation among people. Is this your view? If not what is it?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now I know the first thing that libertarians will say is... "But that destroys individual effort! Because if people get what they need regardless of effort, then nobody will do anything!" That's a false assumption of human character. Humans actually have a NEED to be productive because it gives them a sense of control over their environment. I think what destroys individual effort more than anything is to have to labor under someone else's direction and then have the fruits of your labor taken away for someone else's benefit. Nothing destroys the work ethic like slavery. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
I believe the libertarian belief would be that an act is evil if it interferes with someone else’s control over his life and his possessions. Many might allow such an act as punishment for a similar offence against another.
The objection you predicted strikes me as being one from economics. People respond to incentives, so if you destroy their incentives to do X, you get less X. Everyday experience suggests to me that this argument is correct: people do respond to threats of punishment and hopes of reward. You are in effect arguing that this is not so, and I would like to see what evidence leads you think that.
That said, this is a side issue. Even if a society you considered free of evil was impossible, this would not prove your concept of evil useless. We cannot achieve absolute zero, but the concept is still useful.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I happen to have my own definition, which is firmly based in Pope John XXIII-era Catholicism. But as they say "Your results may vary". And altho I think I can make a coherent case for my ideas of "good" and "evil"' I'm not sure it's really productive to discuss our individual concepts. All we would do is agree on the prevailing mind-set. Or.. not. Maybe we have some Zeusists around!
So perhaps the best way to look at the concept is from a functional/ historical perspective. I come back to the idea of good and evil as an overarching tool of enforcing conformity, and back to the necessity of getting the people to whom applies to "buy into" such a system. In other words, it has to offer something, if only a place in heaven.
So speculating further, one of the interesting things I've noticed about social power- whether military, economic, communications, ideological- is that it inevitably concentrates. The wealthy use their wealth to gather wealth and arms, the well-armed gather greater armies and loot, and ALL of the powerful eventually "shape" the message of "good" (or lawful) to become support for the leader and "evil" (or unlawful) to become opposition. There is no difference betwe
en the Sun God Pharaoh, the Son of God (in the form of the Pope) and the Sun King... the leaders ally themselves with the deities and the moral code as handed down from the gods (or, in the current mind-set of capitalism, as handed down by Nature, which dictates a dog-eat-dog society).
So is there a natural countervening force? I think there are several. Social control and conformity can simply be imposed by fear, whether it is fear of the leader or fear an enemy. (The smart leader creates an enemy, even if none exist.) But there's another countervening force, and that is technology and specialization. It seems to me that as societies become more and more complex... and as the required tasks become too complex to whip people into performing them... the concept of who is due a reward has to become more inclusive.
What say you?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cavalier - is that you HK? I didn't want to assume.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, instead of arguing whose puppet strings are prettier, look at the hands holding the strings.
Anybody up for that?
Rue- I'm pretty sure it's not HK.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OOOKAAAYYY ...
I'll need to think about your post.
I was thinking of good and evil from a neurological/ evolutionary perspective. Any interaction that causes the release of oxytocin in roughly 80% of people is 'good'.
Added: Here is my thinking. However neurology generates a signal that 'feels good' or 'feels bad', it does do that for all sorts of survival behavior. Hunger and thirst feel bad, eating and drinking feel good. So 'good' and 'bad' are tied to species survival.
In terms of interaction between members of the same species, there are different survival strategies for different species.
For large carnivores like tigers, it's good to have a large territory, therefore they are internally motivated to establish and hold the best and largest area they can. OTOH for birds it's good to share sitting on eggs and keeping them warm, therefore they are motivated to do that.
Primates are positively motivated to cooperate and to reward cooperators. Chimps select good cooperators to befriend, many primates 'punish' cheaters, refuse 'unfair' rewards etc. There seems to be an internal primate system that rewards most individuals for 'good' with the good feelings oxytocin brings. OTOH 'evil' leads to feelings of isolation and stress.
People who have a choice and interact to generate oxytocin are good, those who chose other are evil.
Which leads me to consider that this system selects for evil people. They garner wealth and power over others rather than the rewards of oxytocin. This system selects for them, therefore this system selects for evil people.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No it isn't.
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)
Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.
Bollocks.
Quote:
Corporations have no interest in 'helping people'.
Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?
Quote:
fuzzy-happy altruistic organisations as you'd like to paint them.
It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.
Quote:
But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.
Quote:
Large Multinational Corporations have no place in a healthy Capitalist society,
I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society. Something like Cisco systems belongs, because it's a self-build giant which provides a service in the absence of serious original competitors meaning competitors who have their own way of doing things. Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them. For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.
Quote:
but they and the Corporatist society they foster are the enevitable result of Capitalism,
Capitalism evolves, it sets new rules which change where its headed. At the moment, some has been changing rules to engineer capitalism to head towards this goal. I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it. But I accept that there are other types of socialism which are not as bad.
Quote:
No to characterize social programs as less charity than a terrorist organisation is a gross distortion. Actually it's more than that, its utter lunacy.
Al Qaeda is a charity. read up on it. It's also a terrorist organization, it's all in the way in which it is used. But as a charity, it is a real charity. it's not a cover or a money laundering organization, it's actually a charity. Al Qaeda is a communication network, as such, it is neither good nor evil, it is only a tool. It can, and is, used for both good and evil, hence charity and terrorism.
I think I backed the dole. But we don't have it. The dole is my favorite social program I said., logical simple. No problems, unless it funds illicit drug trade. But the dole is hardly a social program at all. When I think social programs I think about govt. agents coming to better people's lives, social workers, head starts, etc. Not evil, that's a stretch, but they are about control, about affecting change in the social order towards a desired goal. So is the employment office.
Quote:
The gross distortion is trying to portray corporations as perfectly altruistic happy bunnies hop hop hopping through happy capitalist land helping people and handing out 'wowy-pops'.
LOL. couldn't stop laughing. with you, not at you. but still, you're a trip. The corporation, sure, is a flawed economic institution, and the human being is a flawed animal. Things evolve. Socialism still looks like intelligent design to me, and I don't see a reason to compromise with it. Yet. I'm not ruling it out, but at the moment I see a long history of liberal academics seeking control over society to mold it into their world view. Mind you, I'm one of the poor rural folk they try to 'h
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm,
No one sees the beauty in the Schweitzer definition.
Snark,
Sure, it's the sort of thing that would make sense to a Taoist I guess. Fire doesn't have a will, it's not evil. Starting wildfires is evil. I think that a small dose of common sense is needed to understand the world. Those who argue without it operate in a fog of confusion, and use rhetorical devices to pull others into their fog. Common sense tells you that guns kill people, regardless of the semantic arguments used by people against the idea.
In the Yin/Yang the light and dark are complimentary phases, neither right nor wrong. Everything is a balance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous,
Waco, Somalia, the Iraqi Seige, vetoing the Rwanda resolution, these were all early year things. Directly, I'm not sure that control of congress helped Clinton achieve these things, but a president with control of congress is cocky, because he knows he's not going to get impeached. So he does things he might not. Also, the selling our military bases to china and the quartermaster's corps to Halliburton were in this period I believe. I think these all boil down to 1) killing people and 2) betraying america, duties of his job, those who voted for him, etc.
I think we're talking about objective evil. On reason I don't go "democrats equal clinton" is that honestly, there's not a whole lot of clinton policy I can peg down as being arch-typical of democrats. If I think democrats lean towards social programs, liberal values, institutional education, organized labor, state regulation, etc. then it's real hard to look at clinton from an outside perspective, knowing nothing about him other than the policies he actually enacted and say, without question "There's a democrat." If Clinton had been a republican, you guys would not be looking at him and saying "by that guys policies, he should be a democrat" in the very same way that if Bush were a democrat, no one on this side looking at him would say "by that guy's policies, he should be a republican." There's nothing pro-business fiscally conservative, internationalist, limited govt., libertarian or morally upright about george w. bush.
Bush/Clintonism is at the very least something else. I think it's one ideology, neither democrat or republican, but some third thing that lately i've taken to calling 'globalist'.
Quote:
Right now the democratic party is far more progressive than the Republican party
I would definitely question this claim. I see nothing progressive about the current democratic party other than that they use the word a lot.
The current GOP has its head up its ass, no argument there. But I don't see a lot of evidence that the current democratic party does not. I'm not sure the democrats have ever done anything for the poor.
I don't see this historic switch of the roles of the parties, I think it's a myth. I just see a GOP which eventually decayed into mediocrity, and a DNC which attempted to pick up the ball in 1968 and then dropped it in 1992 after getting sick of losing elections. Even the Carter admin, the sole accomplishment of so called progressive dems, was seriously flawed and riddled with neocon influence. Still, Carter i will grant is the best democrat.
I'm not sure civil rights are an issue, but then i'm not black. economically and socially, I don't see blacks as being disadvantaged, certainly around where i live. You go into the really poor places and you can be sure people will be 100% white, the richer you go, the more blacks you see. I realize it's not like that everywhere, but still, nationally I'd be very surprised if when you remove those top few %there is any remaining difference between blacks and whites. I think that like the feminists, at some point the civil rights crowd has to accept that they've won.
Johnson lost support over Vietnam not because it was a war, but because he had run on the platform of not going to war. "I'm no going to send american boys ..." sound familiar? Well., he lied. Continuously. It's hard to get support from that. Unless your constituency thinks your the son of god apparently.
Quote:
You can only stray so far from your platform.
Maybe at some point, but the new technique is to run on nothing but air. Obama's interviews on oprah and all seemt o be about cookies and argyle socks. If Obama ends up running on a ticket of cookies and argyle socks, how can his constiuency complain if he bombs Iran or Venezuela? He just has to say, "yeah, but I had my cookies in the war room and was wearing my argyle socks."
The Bush admin's platform seems to be "I'm the son of God"
What was he going to run on? "I attacked y'all on nine-eleven!" ? Not a winning platform.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times
Interesting. I feel like I've gotten a good bit out of it. I noted coming in that I had plenty of questions and not many answers. Now I still have questions but also have more perspectives to consider.-Geezer
Quote:throwing it in the direction of anti-Bush posters, and you have no idea what it means?
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?
Wow.
Interesting.
---------------------------------
You're a lying sack of crap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Geezer: 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.
Geezer,
I think a confusion has happened here. Both of you are actually right.
The evil plot of world domination is that the neocons are part of a globalist circle. They are not "all" of the globalist circle.
The globalist agenda is pretty simple:
1. Establish unaccountable multinational unions
2. Dissolve the nation states within those unions
3. Merge those unions into a global alliance
This is *not* a conspiracy, everyone knows they are doing this, and they say they are doing this.
This is *why* the Iraq war. It was necessary to get the missing pieces of the middle east to agree to the MEFTA concept, hence, Iraq, Afgh, Iran, Syria and Lebanon were "needed"
Meanwhile, some oil companies sought to profit, some anti-socialist sought reform, and some religious nuts on all sides sought to go ape on their ape on their enemies. All are basically opportunists of the plan, but not the raison d'etre to the plan. Sure, they contribute to campaigns, because they wanted to see it happen. But they didn't write the agenda.
So, in one respect Bush *is* part of an evil plot to rule the world, but not as such. He's not necessarily a witting part, or even more of a part than anyone else. He's just maybe not a genius, and he's getting played more than other people. I think he's a bad person, on a personal level, a flawed individual, morally bankrupt even. But that's just my personal opinion. But he's not alone in that either.
But this isn't a "Bush Plan". It was a Clinton plan before it was a Bush plan, and it will be an Obama plan afterwords.
To see what's going on, its really informative to look at the whole history. In the Bush Sr. Admin there was a total struggle for influence, as the globalists tried to use the Bush Sr. presidency to forward the globalist agenda. There were intense struggles between Bush and the globalists, leading to a huge fight between Cheney, a member of the globalist camp, and Bush Sr.
The globalists, whether they "created" candidates, or simply helped the along or just joined their campaigns, or even just rode on their coat-tails - they went candidate hopping. They've been candidate hopping for a while, and you can tell because they show up, and their agenda shows up.
My analysis of the situation is that after Bush Sr. they decided "We need corrupt" and so they went with Clinton. Next they decided that Clinton was too crafty and decided "We need stupid" and went with Bush Jr. Now I think they're thinking "Stupid was a mistake, we need charismatic but politically naive" which is what I think they think they've found in Obama.
Globalists support Obama, make no mistake of it. This doesn't mean "Obama is evil" or even "Obama will be a bad president" it doesn't even mean "Obama will forward the globalist agenda." It means "Globalists think that Obama will forward the globalist agenda."
Now, the final piece of the puzzle is "Why is the globalist agenda evil?"
The globalists deeply believe that they are doing the right thing, and that it is for the greater good. The line between that and "evil plot for global domination" is very thin. I don't think that they are sitting their going "Muahahaha! We will rule the world!" At least, not in their inner circle. I think sometimes they get allies who think that way. I think they think that this will put an end to war, injustice etc. I also think they happen to be wrong. I think internal struggles in large empires such as the USSR show that. But that's not why its evil.
It's evil because it cannot accept compromise. The world govt model *forces* everyone to fall in line, and doesn't allow them wriggle room to be independent. There will be no independence when the agenda is complete, and I assure you, there will be no personal freedom on the level we have now, because this level of freedom is considered dangerous, and a threat. ID cards and person tracking will be
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll go all simple here.
If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.
If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.
As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times... and you have no idea what it means?
Wow.
Interesting.
I have an idea of what it means to me. What I have a hard time with is describing my definition of "Evil" in objective and unambiguous terms - so that anyone with that description could always apply it to a certain person or situation and say (edit to add)correctly, "Geezer would consider that evil". And, once again, I think that the problem isn't at the Ghandi---Hitler ends of the scale of good and evil, but in the cloudy middle.
I think this is because deciding what's evil to an individual is in some part an emotional decision, like deciding what is beautiful. I think John Singer Sargent's painting Repose is beautiful, but Jackson Pollock leaves me cold. Another person might believe the opposite, but we both might think a sunset is beautiful. Can either choice of beauty be objectively considered the proper one?
One thing I've figured out from this discussion, (or at least brought to the surface to the point of being able to articulate it), Is that one's decision about what to consider evil depends a great deal on what one decides to consider the "Truth" of an event. Each person will have a differing perception of the truth, based on their own particular circumstances which have shaped their decision-making process. And again, there will be instances where almost everyone agrees on the truth, and instances where they don't. There will be cases where there isn't enough clear evidence about an event and the motivations behind it to allow a hypothetical impartial judge to determine the truth.
Oh, I've also decided that motives and motivations do matter, at least in my determination of evil. A person who wants to blow up a kindergarten just to collect insurance on his kid is still evil, in my book, even though the police stop him prior to the event.
So, yeah, this whole excercise has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about how I (and, I suspect, most other people) decide what is evil to me, about whether evil is relative(Y) or absolute, about whether the identification of evil by each different person is objective or subjective(Y).
Interesting, indeed.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.
If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.
Okay, wild hypothetical:
Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.
He hates Bin Laden and kills him.
Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The act may be 'justifiable', but I'd still call it evil.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.
He hates Bin Laden and kills him.
Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?
Bombing civilians in Nagasaki was evil, even though it ended a war, saving other lives.
Good people can sometimes do evil things.
The sometimes evil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove,
As to what democrats have done, or tried to do for the poor -
for starters, most democrats tried to kill the absolutely horrible bankruptcy bill that screws the middle class and the poor.
they've also been tryig to raise the minimum wage.
they were also succesful in preventing the Bush administartion from privatizing social security
as to what they've done for civil rights by comparisson -
they mostly stood against the new torture legislation Bush wanted passed, though they did not filibuster.-
They have not been running on the platform that gays should not be allowed to marry, and when pressed, yes sometimes weasel on that issue as much as possible, to their own detriment.
they did not disenfranchise poor voters on a massive scale.
....................
I'm fine with you saying they are all bad. The floor votes by the democrats could very well be posturing for all I know.
but at least make a distinction between the degrees of evil. As I saide, they still have to appeal to a more progressive base.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted 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? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?
What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?
You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?
---------------------------------
I must have left that in my other pants pocket.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Careful DT, you are replying to me, not vice versa, so it is you replying to Argue
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)
Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.
.And no, I still don't think the idea that corporations are leaping up and down like Donkey in Shrek saying "Pick me pick me, I want to help you, oh won't you let me help you, I really want to help you" is correct.
They're leaping up and down saying “Give me your money” and “No me, I want your money more! Give it to me Give it too meeee!”
Quote:Because several thousand years before the first corporation was founded people found that it was easier to trade using little tokens with an agreed universal value instead of haggling with real merchandise that was worth different things to different people.
Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?
Now you're getting it all arse about face, you say corporations just want to help us, I say they just want money and you seem to think that means I'm saying they don't render a service in order to get it. Of course they do, but take a look around, the most successful corporations aren't the one's that give the best service, they're the ones that make the most money. In fact the most successful corporations are the ones that make money without have to do anything or next to nothing to get it. Corporations want to make money, they don't want to provide a service, they want money, it just so happens providing a service or product or whatever is away of making money, if it wasn't corporations would do something else.
Quote:Trade existed before capitalism, trade is not a capitalist invention. And frankly you show me an economist that says they truly understand economics and I'll show you a liar.
It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.
Quote:No seriously, large corporations with the rights but none of the responsibilities of individuals have no place in Capitalism because they offer an unequal trading partner. In Capitalism you are supposed to be able to trade on an even footing, you can't do that with multi-nationals because of their monolithic size. They make the rules, and you either choose to follow their rules or the rules of some other monolithic corporate entity.
I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society.
Quote:Not exactly, there are standards in place to ensure that all network equipment is interoperable no matter what company it comes from. Belkin, 3Com, Linksys etc aren't copying Cisco, they're making equipment that does the same job for the same standards so that if the customer buys a Cisco Router they don't need to buy a Cisco network card as well, they can buy any network card they want.
Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them.
To put it simply Cat5 cable is Cat5 cable no matter who produces it, it's the standard they're working from.
Quote:Oh don't believe it. Really the core of the Intel business is PC CPUs, and that business hasn't changed one bit since the first Intel x86 chip save to give Intel even larger market share. There is currently four companies (AMD, IBM, Intel and NatSemi) that have rights to produce x86 based chips. And really that's all there is now in computer land, used to be Macs ran on IBM Powe
For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world...
It's a small point but whenever I see this claim I always think: If this is true, why has the world not copied the NHS? And if they have, why do they still envy it?
It always struck me as a self-disproving claim.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cavalier - is that you HK? I didn't want to assume.
Having quickly searched the archieves: Apparently not.
I'd have picked a different name, if I had realised it was so similar to an existing one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Evil doers made me double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted 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? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?
What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?
You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?
Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go. Why is that?
I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush and the Bush Administration to be, based on your comments. Rue's thread "Stupid, Evil, and Corrupt" concerning what Rue considers the Administration's failures, comes to mind. http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23730
You apparently come to this conclusion based on some of the points discussed above; the information you have, the beliefs you bring from childhood or have developed since then, your pre-conceptions and biases. This is not meant as criticism, since most everyone reaches their conclusion about what is evil in the same way.
You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.
So no more politics in this thread for me. If you want to discuss evil in general, fine. If you want do discuss "Bush is evil", start your own thread.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The NHS is ranked as about fourth best in the world, behind Germany and a few other European Nations I believe that have partial or fully socialised healthcare. If anyone from position five down isn't looking up to the NHS and aspiring to provide cheap health care to at least their standard then they're stupid.
Also everyone, EVERYONE, even those higher than the NHS on the league tables want NHS nurses and Doctors because they are amongst the best in the world. That includes the US health business.
It's not a self-disproving claim because you've applied false logic, by your logic there is no such thing as envy, because if we ever envied someone or something we'd copy it and then not envy it any more. But brother there's still envy in the world .
Oh and I am planning to get back to you on the ST:Fascism thread eventually .
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Evil" double-post!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'll go all simple here.
If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.
If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.
As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall
"What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." (F. Nietzsche)
"Evil" is a word I try to steer way clear from, mainly in fact due to the Nietzschean reason - calling something "evil" is a stronger way of saying that "by my moral ethos this thing is wrong" and is therefore, in and of itself, a highly relativistic and therefore objectively meaningless word. Evil, good, etc. are emotive concepts, hence their frequent recourse in debates, but due to shifting meanings can't be relied upon out of context.
For the same reason I prefer not to use the word "terrorist". It's like calling someone a Nazi; by that, unless the person has self-referenced as a Nazi (or is a genuine German WW2 vet who was a prominent member of the party), you tend to mean they're a right-winger whose views you dislike. Most terrorists don't self-reference as terrorists, and terrorism comes in many shapes and sizes anyway, therefore "bomb-maker" or "mass murderer" are a little more specific. (Anyone notice how "Islamic terrorism" became "Islamic fascism" when the word "terrorist" had just become so over-used that its impact was being lessened?) Similarly, most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.
This is not meant as an argument for moral relativism, more like an observation that people argue about what's moral and what isn't and, therefore, using a categorisation word like "evil" is often ineffective.
(Apologies if that was a little abstruse. Philosophy grad.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cases can be made for the evils I have personally done in this world, and to some I would plead guilty.
Originally posted by Eloisa:
most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.
True, enduring evil cannot make this claim.
To claim complete purity of vision and spirit is a sign that you're on the Dark Side.
Excellent post, BTW Eloisa.
Yours in the Force, Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So in "political" threads you accuse people with words that you don't understand, and in "discussion" threads you don't discuss them? HAHAHAHA! Cool!
Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go.
Quote:Except for "the pretty obvious fact" that I didn't use the word at all except to wonder out loud what YOU meant. I didn't say that Bush was evil or not evil, I didn't call Hitler and Stalin evil, and I didn't say that anyone else was sayin' it. But you did.
I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush
Quote:I'm not trying to ram ANYTHING down your throat! If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?
You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to my concept of evil -
I'd like to take 'good' and 'evil' out of the philospophical realm and into the biological.
Organisms have signals that induce them to behaviors that lead to species survival. Those signals are what put the value on anything. Pain, hunger, thirst, isolation, threat - without internal input they are just some events. It's the internal response that puts value on them in that they feel 'bad'. Oppositely, there are internal rewards for positive species survival behaviors. (I presume I don't need to list them out.)
As primates, people have evolved internal senses that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings.
There are some people born without much of that reward. Strife, stress, tension, fear can destroy it. So if you mess with people enough, over time you can destroy that sensation of reward.
So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, are there 20% roughly that produce oxytocin when they torture other peeps, or when they shoot old friends in the heart and neck while hunting danquayles?
Originally posted by rue:
So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.
Most evil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey there ChrisIsAll,
They don't get oxytocin out of it. It may be that since that reward system is blocked they look for other rewards - sado-maso sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling (or other addictive behavior that goes through the dopamine system of physical rather than social reward) for example.
Just my speculation, but it's how I am putting the current information together.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'll bite. I said earlier that the concept of "good" and "evil" is a SOCIAL tool for behavior control. But it would be impossible to get anyone to buy into the system w/o offering them some sort of reward- I'll sacrifice my kid if the rains come. I'll give up being rich today because I might be rich tomorrow. I'll put up with crap because I'll get a place in heaven. IMHO, MOST of the time the specifics of "good" and "evil" are manipulated to benefit the powerful. But the BASIS is that in order to get people to give something up, you have to offer them something in return. But when you said
Quote:I think there are other mechanisms at work. You can get species "cooperation" by simply having one individual dominate the entire nest/ colony/ tribe, appropriating all the resources first and putting all others to work benefitting one individual, but there is nothing in there of "fairness" or "trust".
that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings
It's possible that the release of oxytocin IN HUMANS needs ALL of those things together... elements of cooperation (w/o complete domination), fairness and trust... in order to occur, but "cooperation" alone doesn't explain the basis of "good" and "evil". Actually, now that I think about it... oxytocin release has to do with individual skin to skin contact and interaction. "Good" and "evil" seem to be much more generic concepts. Can you get an oxytocin release from being "good"?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Skipping all the political stuff...
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?
And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't."
I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. I doubt you can either. I can say I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I can say I try to look at both sides of the evidence, not just choose what fits my biases. I can say that a person's motivations for an action, or level of concern for those affected by that action, play a part in my decision. And sometimes my decision will be "I don't know. I don't have enough information."
So sorry, I can't define how I determine what I consider evil. I mentioned above (see the "I can say..." sentences) some of the criteria I apply, but I can't say how the final decision rises, except to say it is in part an emotional decision, based on my unique makeup as an individual.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For example, fMRI imaging during cooperative games shows activity in areas where oxytocin is released. There do seem to be indications that primates (not just humans) have an internal scale by which they judge the fairness (cooperativeness, trust-worthiness) of others of their species.
This reward for social bonding seems to be separate from other rewards and seems to involve oxytocin.
I'm not saying that all species have this internal reward for cooperation. But that as cooperative primates, humans do and therefore have an evolutionary in-built scale for it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But Geezer, you have not even fractionally described your use of the word even in a specific sentence. "Evil is what I think it is." Well... DUH! That goes for all of us. So let's stipulate that evil is individually perceived and likely to change from context to context. Take a stab at it, and let's remove Bush form the discussion. When you said that you thought Hitler was "evil", what did you mean?
And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't." I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. .
Quote:But that doesn't keep us from exploring the idea, does it?
I doubt you can either
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to put my PS down here so it wouldn't get lost.
I'm not saying that social cooperation in necessary for all survival. Bacteria manage with mutations and fast generation cycles. But primates, for whatever reason, survived in part by voluntary mutual cooperation. Given that, there are brain systems to sense and prefer it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME