Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: May 15, 2024 12:28PM
First, I haven't been on site for a couple of days so I didn't see your response until now. Two things about that response (see below) jump out at me: 1) the unwillingness to recognize group evils; and 2) the idea that evil can be objectively defined, something that in most cases I highly doubt.
COMMENT: In my opinion "evil" is instantiated through *individual* thoughts and conduct that occurs as through free choices. Groups can perpetrate evil (on this view) only to the extent of 'group think' and associated group conduct that reflects the individual attitudes of the group. As to objectivity, it seems to me that there must be some sense of objectivity -- even if not perfect -- in order to even rationally discuss what is or is not evil. If there is literally *no* foundation of agreement, how can evil be identified and judged for purposes of discussion?
_____________________________________________
To me, the greatest criminal is not the person who murders another in the heat of an argument; nor is it the person who knows his victim and plans his act down to the smallest detail; rather, it is the person who kills others without knowing anything about them or their lives.
COMMENT: Well, total context is important, including the criteria I proposed in my original post. After all, there are *just* wars, or responses to brutal, unprovoked invasions, where some civilian deaths are inevitable. Such people who are merely reacting to another's evil conduct towards them, meet your description of the "greatest criminal," which to my mind shows that you cannot be strictly right here. Who, what, where, why, and how, become extremely relevant.
____________________________________________
Terrorists, both domestic and foreign, who commit murder for their group for religious or racial purity, would fall under my worst definition as well as serial killers who really have no idea at all as to why they kill other human beings. As to the exception, I think those who spout the ideas that lead others to do those henous acts should be tried and executed for incitement of stochastic terrorism.
COMMENT: Again, context is everything in moral judgments. That said, I generally agree with you that ideological terrorist are high on the list of 'evildoers.' As for serial killers, often there is an underlying history and associated mental issues to consider, which brings us back to broad context.
_____________________________________
As I noted at the top, this is where you and I would most definitely part ways. Anthropologists tell us that human beings are social creatures and that therefore loyalty to the tribe is an all-to-real motivator for the killing of others. Adolf Hitler used tribal loyalty to great effect between 1933 when he took power in Germany until the end of World War II, but he wasn't alone; in fact, the only real anomaly about the German Nazis was the means they used to kill millions of Jews and others who didn't fit into their German tribe--it was the first time that gas was used for such purposes against innocent civilians. In more recent times, we've had the Hoothis and Tutus in Africa; and the seemingly endless Arab-Jewish conflict. And, of course, lest we not forget, there were the killings of civil rights workers in the U.S. South by those who wished to protect their white privileges from African-americans and others.
Oh no. Tribalism isn't rare, and it is a very strong force that motivates us humans even today. And that tribalism, and the failure to see others not in our tribe as deserving the same rights and privileges as we have, is one *very* strong source of evil.
COMMENT: Look, there are a lot of groups in the world that could be considered as "tribes." As long as "tribe" is poorly, or loosely defined, we can assume that "tribe" refers to any group having some common connection (familial, political, social, religious, professional, etc. etc,) Once you adopt such a broad view, tribal evil is relatively very rare--even in the context of religion. On the other hand, if you limit "tribalism" to traditional genetic "tribes," it still seems relatively rare. Note: I didn't say tribal evil was nonexistent, or even that it was not important.
__________________________________
I'm not sure how you "intuitively" understand evil. The only resources that humans have access to is the resources available on this planet. And since we can measure the size of Earth, we know that there is a finite limit to all resources available to humans. Now, some resources do regenarate themselves over time--but we are using those resources faster than they can regenerate themselves.
COMMENT: Again, some people perpetrate evil motivated by greed. But greed is NOT the defining point of evil. (not a necessary although perhaps a sufficient condition of evil) There is just way too much evil perpetrated where greed had nothing to do with it.
___________________________________
And that brings me back to greed. Greed is the hoarding of nearly all resources by those with the means and methodology to do it over others. It is very much the product of unregulated capitalism (as writer and researcher Naomi Klein has pointed out in the last decade). It is also very much in sync with our emotions and has spread out evil, especially to minorities and the dispossessed.
COMMENT: Is the capitalist evil per se? Is capitalism per se "greedy?" Maybe, but that strikes me as very overly simplistic. (And I view myself as a democratic socialist!) It would seem to me that any determination of evil would depend upon his or her social attitudes; what she did with her money; whether she cheated, etc. I doubt any capitalist who otherwise played by the rules, was sensitive to human needs in the distribution of his or her wealth; and whose wealth itself was not based upon harming others, would be considered "evil" simply because he or she was a capitalist--even if capitalism generally produced disparate and unfair economic hardship.
_________________________________
I think that Human was taking the concepts I laid out and applying them to what he/she sees going on today. I don't know that he/she sees things the same way that I do (we all think differently from each other) but it is nice to see him/her try.
And yet in the end, evil is a judgment call made by individuals. And, using that definition, what most people consider to be evil will ultimately rule, regardless of what you or I may actually think.
COMMENT: As I have noted many times, morality requires free will. Moreover, moral judgments (including judgments of evil) require some standard of moral objectivity. It cannot just be what anyone happens to think about the matter. A weak objectivity may be found in common intuitions, like the golden rule. However, if moral objectivity can be more firmly established by postulating (even if just in principle, as a matter of faith) some underlying metaphysical reality, then all the better (at least from a logical point of view, if not a scientific one).
Just as mathematics is on a much firmer objective ground when considered as based upon some underlying metaphysical (platonic) mathematical reality (also a matter of faith); morality is on much firmer objective ground when considered as based upon some underlying metaphysical, platonic moral reality. In both cases there is a huge problem in identifying and coming in contact with such a reality, but in principle it allows us to believe that morality (and mathematics) are really part of the universe, and not something human beings just made up.
Thank you for your insightful comments, blindguy. It is always appreciated.