Definition of Evil

Weak Kitten said:
I've always thought of evil as "treating people as if they were things".

I define "people" pretty broadly so it does include animals who are intelligent enough to be self aware. Yeah, this means that cows are included in the list but truthfully I think you should treat cows to a level that is appropriate for their mental capacity and simple basic needs. This doesn't mean you can't kill and eat them, just that you should treat them well and kill them humanely.

Huh, this is a pretty tough question. I need to think on it some more.
Click to expand...



It's an interesting issue and certainly explains the 'banality of evil'. What I find interesting is when we apply it to bigger 'social structures'. It is in the nature of capitalism to treat people like things. Same with bureaucracies. Is capitalism inherently evil, even with all the benefits accruing to all of us? Perhaps that is why no pure capitalist system is in place anywhere. There are breaks put on in every economy I know.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to address my earlier question regarding murder, when somebody stated that murder was, by definition, "evil"...

Let's go back in time, and suppose someone were to murder Adolf Hitler at the height of his genocidal campaign against the Jews in WWII; would that be an "evil" act?
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I'm still waiting for someone to address my earlier question regarding murder, when somebody stated that murder was, by definition, "evil"...

Let's go back in time, and suppose someone were to murder Adolf Hitler at the height of his genocidal campaign against the Jews in WWII, would that be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...

Not being a Utilitarian, I would answer 'yes'. But it would have terrifically good consequences that we would never know about.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I'm still waiting for someone to address my earlier question regarding murder, when somebody stated that murder was, by definition, "evil"...

Let's go back in time, and suppose someone were to murder Adolf Hitler at the height of his genocidal campaign against the Jews in WWII; would that be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...

Okay, yes.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Not being a Utilitarian, I would answer 'yes'. But it would have terrifically good consequences that we would never know about.
Click to expand...

Okay, suppose that we did know in advance about the good consequences of murdering Hitler while he was conducting his genocide during WWII (not when he was a child). Would murdering him then still be an "evil" act?
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Okay, suppose that we did know in advance about the good consequences of murdering Hitler while he was conducting his genocide during WWII. Would murdering him then still be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...

MattusMaximus said:
Suppose Hitler survived WWII, and he was placed on trial. Would executing him for his genocide after-the-fact be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...

What would be truly evil would be to go back in time, and using our current film technologies, make him think that the same thing had already been done to people he knew and loved.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Okay, suppose that we did know in advance about the good consequences of murdering Hitler while he was conducting his genocide during WWII (not when he was a child). Would murdering him then still be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...


To employ a little Kant-speak, once someone has broken the 'moral sphere', as in committing murder or rape, then we are justified in stopping them to try to return us back to a state of everyone treating each other as an end and not as a means to an end.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
To employ a little Kant-speak, once someone has broken the 'moral sphere', as in committing murder or rape, then we are justified in stopping them to try to return us back to a state of everyone treating each other as an end and not as a means to an end.
Click to expand...

So, in plain English, what is your answer? Is it or is it not "evil" to murder Hitler under the circumstances I described to you? Because what you just stated here seems to be in direct contradiction to your earlier response.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
So, in plain English, what is your answer? Is it or is it not "evil" to murder Hitler under the circumstances I described to you? Because what you just stated here seems to be in direct contradiction to your earlier response.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't notice how you had phrased the question initially and just assumed you were posing the "kill Hitler as a baby" scenario. My bad.:o


Once he has committed murder it is OK to try to stop him. Ideally we would want just to stop him, but Kant would insist that he must be stopped, tried, convicted and then killed.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Sorry, I didn't notice how you had phrased the question initially and just assumed you were posing the "kill Hitler as a baby" scenario. My bad.:o
Click to expand...

No problem.

Once he has committed murder it is OK to try to stop him. Ideally we would want just to stop him, but Kant would insist that he must be stopped, tried, convicted and then killed.
Click to expand...

So does that mean that executing him after-the-fact is not "evil"? What if "stopping him" meant committing murder?
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
What if stopping him meant committing murder?
Click to expand...


I would say that if it is the only way to return things to rights, then it must be done. From one perspective -- when everyone treats each other nicely -- it would be considered evil because it is a murder. But since he has already 'broken the moral sphere' (everyone treating each other nicely), then stopping him through whatever means possible must be done. That type of murder would be justified and I am not sure we could put a label on it as either evil or good. It is simply necessary.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Let's go back in time, and suppose someone were to murder Adolf Hitler at the height of his genocidal campaign against the Jews in WWII; would that be an "evil" act?
Click to expand...

Regarding this question one can as can give a definite answer by appeal to authority:
No.

The authority in question would be german constitution and law. Since there had been several attempts upon Hitlers life:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler-Attentat

and the people in question were in part sentenced and executed, the discussion about whether these attempts on hitlers life were legal or would have been legal under the past 1945 legal framework is discussed very often in germany.

As an example Georg Elser made an attempt on hitlers life on 8.11.1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser
The following link is a discussion by former german supreme court head Limbach, whether his act was legally justified:
http://www.georg-elser-arbeitskreis.de/texts/limbach.htm

In short summary, the only open question from the viewpoint of german criminal and constitutional are, whether Elser could have been certain, that his action could have the intended poliical effect and was without alternative (the conclusion there is "yes"), and whether his choice of a bomb, which claimed the life of 2 innocent waitresses, was acceptable (Limbach says yes, others disagree).

So according to german constitution, if at the height of the holocaust you can get a clear shot upon Hitler, have a go, it is not only not an "evil" act, but a "good" act.

The german constitution even contains explicitly a right to resistance:

"Article 20
[Constitutional principles – Right of resistance]
The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and so-
cial federal state.
All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be ex-
ercised by the people through elections and other votes and
through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies.
The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order,
the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.
All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seek-
ing to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy
is available."


(I know, argument from authority, but german legal scholars spent a long time discussing the problem, so i trust them in so far, that he act is justified on the basis of german constitution. Whether german constitution is evil or good is of course a different matter.)
 
Carn said:
So according to german constitution, if at the height of the holocaust you can get a clear shot upon Hitler, have a go, it is not only not an "evil" act, but a "good" act.
Click to expand...

And what if the German constitution were written in such a manner as to allow genocide against the Jews? Would murdering Hitler - under the circumstances I've outlined - then be considered an "evil" act?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I would say that if it is the only way to return things to rights, then it must be done. From one perspective -- when everyone treats each other nicely -- it would be considered evil because it is a murder. But since he has already 'broken the moral sphere' (everyone treating each other nicely), then stopping him through whatever means possible must be done. That type of murder would be justified and I am not sure we could put a label on it as either evil or good. It is simply necessary.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the label "a necessary evil"?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Sorry, I didn't notice how you had phrased the question initially and just assumed you were posing the "kill Hitler as a baby" scenario. My bad.:o
Click to expand...

Back to this point, because I want to try exploring the question from all angles...

What if you, somehow, had foreknowledge of Hitler's genocidal acts before they occurred - would murdering him to prevent such genocide qualify as "evil"?

And, to make it more interesting, is there a relevant timeline? Would murdering Hitler a minute before he orders the "Final Solution" be "evil"? What about a month? A year? 10 years? When he's a child? A newborn? What about aborting Hitler as a fetus/embryo?
 
sphenisc said:
What's wrong with the label "a necessary evil"?
Click to expand...


I toyed with using it but am not sure that it applies. I find it hard to think about Hitler without wanted to kill the ******* just based on feelings, so evil doesn't seem to apply as the correct word. It may just be how I feel about it though.

I think there is a sense in which 'necessary evil' just sounds like an empty phrase to me, too.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Back to this point, because I want to try exploring the question from all angles...

What if you, somehow, had foreknowledge of Hitler's genocidal acts before they occurred - would murdering him to prevent such genocide qualify as "evil"?

And, to make it more interesting, is there a relevant timeline? Would murdering Hitler a minute before he orders the "Final Solution" be "evil"? What about a month? A year? 10 years? When he's a child? A newborn? What about aborting Hitler as a fetus/embryo?
Click to expand...


That is where I initially said "yes" to it being evil -- because he has not yet committed the acts.

Now, if we assume that we know for sure that he will commit those acts, then I think that raises an interesting issue -- does morality make any sense at all in such a universe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom