Definition of Evil

[Piscivore]

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.

"Necessary evil" means "it's evil if you do it, but necessary when I do".

 

[sphenisc]

Would you be comfortable with the same label on the other side - i.e. a "necessary good"?

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.

By "necessary evil" I mean a situation in which there are no options of action/inaction which under normal circumstances would not be described as evil. I don't think that I would want to describe the action which is minimally evil as "good". It is a "necessary evil".

A "necessary good" by analogy would be one where there "are no options of action/inaction which under normal circumstances would not be described as good." I'm comfortable with the definition, though I find it hard to envisage a situation where the worst possible action isn't evil or at least morally neutral.

[ For an action to be morally good or evil there needs to be at least two options. ]

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

By "necessary evil" I mean a situation in which there are no options of action/inaction which under normal circumstances would not be described as evil. I don't think that I would want to describe the action which is minimally evil as "good". It is a "necessary evil".

A "necessary good" by analogy would be one where there "are no options of action/inaction which under normal circumstances would not be described as good." I'm comfortable with the definition, though I find it hard to envisage a situation where the worst possible action isn't evil or at least morally neutral.

[ For an action to be morally good or evil there needs to be at least two options. ]

Really just a semantic thing, but the reason I don't feel comfortable using 'evil' in that situation is because normal conditions don't apply and we generally define evil in terms of those normal conditions. It's really just a matter of how we use a term though, and I don't see any problem either way.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

"Necessary evil" means "it's evil if you do it, but necessary when I do".

 

[Weak Kitten]

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 think that's why Piscavore's finding the full quote is so important. It points out that "treating people as things" is where evil starts.

So by that definition capitalism is a system that is inherently vulnerable to tremendous amounts of evil. Thus it is essential to put a great many controls in place to force businesses to treat people as, well, people.

On the subject of killing Hitler. I think that yes, killing him is an evil act. It may be the simplest way of taking him out of the picture but it is not the right way. You could go back in time and bring new and better crops to feed the German people, modern technology to make their economic disaster go away. Then the Nazi Party would never have risen to power in the first place.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So then its perfectly fine if someone broke into your home to brutally massacre your family as you helplessly look on.

It's perfectly fine with them, or they wouldn't be doing it. Not so much for me. Not in the least because I don't value "helplessly look[ing] on".

After all, its just a matter of relative opinion, right?

Yes.

Just like the things I'd do to someone who tried it would be great fun for me, but probably unpleasant and frightnening to them.

Its obvious that people have different perspectives and subjective evaluations. Thats not what I'm asking you. I'm asking, on a relative scale, which would be the more salient consideration: the killer's desire to gratify his blood lust, or the lives of your loved ones? Morally speaking, this is elementary arithmetic.

I'm just providing my own interpretation and assessment of established history. Besides, its all relative anyway -- or so I'm told

So that's another "no", then. You're just presenting your opinion as if it were objective, documented fact, and then making allusions to support you don't have:

"You want me to just start posting links to articles and experts who agree with my points...?"

Why yes. Yes I do.

I don't know whats more pathetic; the fact that you require other people to do your thinking and judging for you, or the fact you seem to be proud of it.

So theres no rational basis upon which to make such deteminations, huh?

Since they are entirely based on subjective values, no. I'd be delighted if you could show evidence (actual evidence, not more of your opinions or "assesments") otherwise.

Morality has no bearing outside of the context of subjective beings, but that does not mean that there is no rational basis upon which to make moral judgments and discern good from evil. Generally speaking,

Objective propositions are assessed on scales such as "true/false", "accurate/inaccurate", "probable/improbable", etc. Support for such propositions rely on evidence.

Subjective considerations are assessed on scales such as "right/wrong", "pleasant/unpleasant", "better/worse", etc. Support for such considerations rely on justification.

You are correct in saying that morality is not 'objective', but that does not mean that it has no rational basis; it simply resides on a different axis of rationality. Judging from your own flimsy responses to rudimentary moral questions, such faculties aren't exactly your strong point.

Do I require authoritatively vetted 'evidence' or a wiki link to validate that assessment?

If you are going to claim that your "assesment" is objective fact, yes.

I'm not saying its objective fact; I'm saying its subjectively cogent

Officially sanctioned credentials, maybe?

Who would provide them?

Who indeed...

And what makes the wiki article relevant to the topic of discussion -- let alone 'factual'?

That's the fallacy you are repeatedly commiting when you offer your own (amatuer and underinformed) opinions and assesments as representing facts.

Do you have any views of your own that aren't a reference to someone else's?

Sure. But I'm a fallible human being and I prefer to deal with fact. And, since I don't consider myself a natural expert as you clearly do... yes, I do reference sources outside myself.

Curious that on a skeptic board you consider this a failing, when it is an important part of skepticism.

The fact that you think subjective considerations require 'evidence' and 'references' speaks volumes for your personal ineptitude in making such judgments.

 

[Piscivore]

Its obvious that people have different perspectives and subjective evaluations. Thats not what I'm asking you. I'm asking, on a relative scale, which would be the more salient consideration: the killer's desire to gratify his blood lust, or the lives of your loved ones? Morally speaking, this is elementary arithmetic.

It depends on who you ask. There is no way to objectively say that any one person's wants, needs or desires are more "salient" than any other persons. In every single case each person's interests are going to outweigh any one else's, for them.

I don't know whats more pathetic; the fact that you require other people to do your thinking and judging for you, or the fact you seem to be proud of it.

Out of arguments, and unable to present evidence, you resort to insult? Is that a test for truth? Is that working out for you?

Morality has no bearing outside of the context of subjective beings, but that does not mean that there is no rational basis upon which to make moral judgments and discern good from evil.

Generally speaking,

Objective propositions are assessed on a scales such as "true/false", "accurate/inaccurate", "probable/improbable", etc. Support for such propositions rely on evidence.

Present some. All you've got so far is assertion.

Subjective considerations are assessed on scales such as "right/wrong", "pleasant/unpleasant", "better/worse", etc. Support for such considerations rely on justification.

"Justification" is irrelevant. It just means that the person who holds the opinion thinks they are correct to hold the opinion. "Justification" has no truth value whatsoever.

You are correct in saying that morality is not 'objective', but that does not mean that it has no rational basis; it simply resides on a different axis of rationality.

What "different axis of rationality" is that?

Judging from your own flimsy responses to rudimentary moral questions, such faculties aren't exactly your strong point.

More insults instead of evidence.

The fact that you think subjective considerations require 'evidence' and 'references' speaks volumes for your personal ineptitude in making such judgments.

And yet more insults. Let me know when you've got something meaningful to say.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Its obvious that people have different perspectives and subjective evaluations. Thats not what I'm asking you. I'm asking, on a relative scale, which would be the more salient consideration: the killer's desire to gratify his blood lust, or the lives of your loved ones? Morally speaking, this is elementary arithmetic.

It depends on who you ask. There is no way to objectively say that any one person's wants, needs or desires are more "salient" than any other persons. In every single case each person's interests are going to outweigh any one else's, for them.

I understand perfectly well that judgments of right and wrong, good and evil, are not objective valuations. However, they are real aspects of existence. Do you seriously not know the difference or are you being deliberately dense?

I don't know whats more pathetic; the fact that you require other people to do your thinking and judging for you, or the fact you seem to be proud of it.

Out of arguments, and unable to present evidence, you resort to insult? Is that a test for truth? Is that working out for you?

The arguments are right in front of your face. Tell me: If I were to provide sources and references, upon what would their authority lie?

Morality has no bearing outside of the context of subjective beings, but that does not mean that there is no rational basis upon which to make moral judgments and discern good from evil.

Generally speaking,

Objective propositions are assessed on a scales such as "true/false", "accurate/inaccurate", "probable/improbable", etc. Support for such propositions rely on evidence.

Present some. All you've got so far is assertion.

Subjective considerations are assessed on scales such as "right/wrong", "pleasant/unpleasant", "better/worse", etc. Support for such considerations rely on justification.

"Justification" is irrelevant. It just means that the person who holds the opinion thinks they are correct to hold the opinion. "Justification" has no truth value whatsoever.

And upon what basis are you making these assessments? Did one of your exalted sources instruct you on this?

You are correct in saying that morality is not 'objective', but that does not mean that it has no rational basis; it simply resides on a different axis of rationality.

What "different axis of rationality" is that?

Objective determinations are on the axis of "Is"; Moral valuations are concerned with the axis of "Ought".

Would that argument be more palatable to you if I spiced it up with quotes from some of your favorite authorities? Maybe if I modified the tone? Hm?

Judging from your own flimsy responses to rudimentary moral questions, such faculties aren't exactly your strong point.

More insults instead of evidence.

So what if you find it insulting? You've just spent the last page or so demonstrating it's true.

The fact that you think subjective considerations require 'evidence' and 'references' speaks volumes for your personal ineptitude in making such judgments.

And yet more insults. Let me know when you've got something meaningful to say.

My insults are quite meaningful and you deserve them. On what basis do you object to them, anyway?

ETA: The fact of the matter is that you've just got your panties in such a bunch over the tone of my posts that you're willfully disregarding the substance of my arguments in some childish attempt to put me 'in my place'. The worst part is that you can't even recognize the petty motivations that are clouding your own judgment. Now, are you gonna try being rational yourself and start assessing my arguments on their own merits or will you keep braying for sources and references? 'Cause, quite frankly, I can keep this up for as long as you can.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think AkuManiMani and Piscivore are being pretty evil to each other right now

 

[MattusMaximus]

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

So if Hitler were five minutes away from ordering the "Final Solution", murdering him at that point would be "evil" because he hasn't actually given the green light to genocide yet? So you're saying it is more moral to wait until after the genocide has been committed and then execute him after-the-fact?

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?

Yes, that is actually one of the issues I'm working towards in this dialog. Glad to see someone else has already considered the implications

Aside: I hope I haven't put anyone off with my pursuit of this particular topic. Please don't think I'm being judgmental or pendantic in my line of argumentation. I'm really going through this as a serious thought-exercise, and I'm trying to stay as emotionless as possible throughout the process, simply following the argument wherever it leads.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I think AkuManiMani and Piscivore are being pretty evil to each other right now

Teehee!

 

[AkuManiMani]

IMO, the actions of people like Hiter, Pol Pot, Manson, etc. are forms of projection; a practice the character disordered [i.e. evil people] tend to indulge in to an extreme degree. They manifest in their behavior toward innocent targets the manner in which they deserve to be treated themselves. In other words, Hitler's "final solution" wasn't wrong, per se, it was just perpetrated against the wrong people...

[Yes, I went there.]

 

[Piscivore]

I think AkuManiMani and Piscivore are being pretty evil to each other right now

Really? That was me trying to be good.

 

[Piscivore]

So if Hitler were five minutes away from ordering the "Final Solution", murdering him at that point would be "evil" because he hasn't actually given the green light to genocide yet? So you're saying it is more moral to wait until after the genocide has been committed and then execute him after-the-fact?

It's evil if it doesn't serve your individual purposes, good if it does. Where it gets complicated is when we try to consider intelligently what best serves our purposes.

If one agrees with Hitler's premises that the Jews represent a degraded or inferior sort of human (and one values "improving" the human race), it would be "good" to allow the genocide, and "evil" not to.

One may disagree with the idea that the Jews are inferior, but if one values personal profit above most other concerns- including human life- and sees an opportunity to personally profit by seizing property from those sent to the camps then going along with or allowing the genocide would be "good", and passing up the opportunity "evil".

If one values the life of any human as completely sacrosanct, no matter what the circumstance, then it would be "evil" to kill Hitler. Contrariwise, one may value the lives of many others over the life of one, and then it would be "good" to kill Hitler.

And really, these are grotesque oversimplifications. In practice, "good" and "evil" look like a dichotomy of fundamental categories, but really they are just labels for behaviours driven by a great many emotional pressures that influence our "moral" behaviour.

 

[Beth]

So if Hitler were five minutes away from ordering the "Final Solution", murdering him at that point would be "evil" because he hasn't actually given the green light to genocide yet? So you're saying it is more moral to wait until after the genocide has been committed and then execute him after-the-fact?

I would say that yes, it's more moral to wait until after the person has committed some crime than to execute them before they do so. But then, I don't believe we live in a deterministic universe and thus what action someone will take is unknown before they take that action.

In practice, "good" and "evil" look like a dichotomy of fundamental categories, but really they are just labels for behaviours driven by a great many emotional pressures that influence our "moral" behaviour.

I think that it is true that good and evil are labels for various behaviors in various circumstances. I don't think that these labels are arbitrary, but they are certainly subjective and not very consistent from one person to the next.

 

[BobHaulk]

Cheap tea bags are pretty evil and Mcdonalds too, probably the worst chip shop in the world

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So if Hitler were five minutes away from ordering the "Final Solution", murdering him at that point would be "evil" because he hasn't actually given the green light to genocide yet? So you're saying it is more moral to wait until after the genocide has been committed and then execute him after-the-fact?

Yes, that is how we use the terms good/evil and moral/immoral. They never refer to acts not yet committed. They can be used conditionally, though, as in "if you steal my cookies then you are evil."

Yes, that is actually one of the issues I'm working towards in this dialog. Glad to see someone else has already considered the implications

Aside: I hope I haven't put anyone off with my pursuit of this particular topic. Please don't think I'm being judgmental or pendantic in my line of argumentation. I'm really going through this as a serious thought-exercise, and I'm trying to stay as emotionless as possible throughout the process, simply following the argument wherever it leads.

A completely deterministic universe that involves time travel, which is probably a contradiction in terms and so logically impossible, shouldn't include words such as good and evil most likely.


Now, a deterministic universe can still include such terms, but they are not absolutes but merely labels. If the universe is determined, then we are determined to use the words and apply them just as we are doing now. We are also determined to discuss this topic and even discuss the fact that we are discussing this topic....................

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In practice, "good" and "evil" look like a dichotomy of fundamental categories, but really they are just labels for behaviours driven by a great many emotional pressures that influence our "moral" behaviour.

^^^^^^
This

 

[Piscivore]

I would say that yes, it's more moral to wait until after the person has committed some crime than to execute them before they do so.

Why?

But then, I don't believe we live in a deterministic universe and thus what action someone will take is unknown before they take that action.

Not always, because often the things people find horrible enough to execute someone for- especially on the "Hitler" scale of atrocities- aren't done on the spur of the moment.

I think that it is true that good and evil are labels for various behaviors in various circumstances. I don't think that these labels are arbitrary, but they are certainly subjective and not very consistent from one person to the next.

Certainly they are not arbitrary... they are absolutley dependent on the collected emotional values of the individual, which are in turn heavily influenced by the prevailing emotional values of his community and the entire history of effects of past behaviours within that community.

 

[Beth]

Why?

Because the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

Not always, because often the things people find horrible enough to execute someone for- especially on the "Hitler" scale of atrocities- aren't done on the spur of the moment.

This is true. Planning to commit a terrible atrocity is, itself, an action that can be (and often is) considered criminal. But execution is reserved for committing the most heinous of crimes, not for planning them.

Certainly they are not arbitrary... they are absolutley dependent on the collected emotional values of the individual, which are in turn heavily influenced by the prevailing emotional values of his community and the entire history of effects of past behaviours within that community.

Yes. We appear to be in agreement on this point.