How James Woods Helped Me Collect My Thoughts on Morality.

David Sklansky · #1 08-19-2005, 03:46 AM

Before he became my buddy, I read an interview of him where he was aked how he prepared himself for a villian's role. His reply was that he always tried to inject some righteousness into that villian no matter how dastardly he appeared. Because he realized that except possibly for the truly insane, everybody basically thinks they are a generally good person. Even career criminals, mobsters and scoundrels justify to themselves that there is a good reason for what they do. Almost no one simply says to themselves "I am bad period. So what? They make excuses in their mind which amount to a desire to conform to some sort of "moral" code, twisted as it may be. And he felt it was important to portray that aspect of their psyche.

Upon reading that I realized James was right. At least as far as the several dozen bad people I knew. And clearly he is right about suicide bombers. Else why would they give up their lives? Surely not just for the 72 virgins. They must have felt that what they were doing was morally right. And that includes the 911 hijackers. (I often think we would have a better chance in the mid east if we would acknowledge this fact rather than simply call them evil criminals. But that is for another thread.) Same goes for most, if not all, Nazis. They almost certainly convinced themselves they were not evil. Likewise slaveowners.

I think everyone agrees that a truly crazy person is not evil any more than an animal is. As for those not crazy, how can you call them evil (rather than stupid or deluded) if they take pains to explain to thmselves or others why what they are doing is "right". Now there may be a few sociopathic types that don't fit into this category but they are either non existent or rare enough to ignore. The fact is that most of those we call evil, upon closer examination really aren't. Probably including Hitler. Something that James Woods helped me see.

chomsky53 · #2 08-19-2005, 04:00 AM

wow. you are really really dumb.

Aytumious · #3 08-19-2005, 06:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
wow. you are really really dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone ban this chimp, please? All of his post are complete pointless and are only made to insult whomever he is responding to.

Jman28 · #4 08-19-2005, 04:14 AM

I agree entirely that almost all people think they are good people. People also all think they have a good personality, but that's off topic.

[ QUOTE ]
As for those not crazy, how can you call them evil (rather than stupid or deluded) if they take pains to explain to thmselves or others why what they are doing is "right".

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where I disagree a little. Maybe 'evil' is a strong word, but there are definitely people who are more good than others. As for the people who convince themselves what they are doing is right, I think that is an issue similar to will power. (Which I have read about it your book.)

We all know that we shouldn't take $50 from a kid even if we will never get caught. Those who can somehow convince themselves it is okay are resisting the will to do right. This is similar to someone convincing themselves it's okay to eat ice cream when dieting.

A better example than is one that is less clearly right/wrong:

A friend needs help moving.

A good friend will resist the urge to stay at home watching TV in order to help his friend.

A bad friend will convince himself that he isn't wrong to not help, and will stay home and watch 'That 70s House' on mtv.

The difference is that one resisted the urge to do 'evil' and I think that we can make a value judgement here and call him a better person.

BluffTHIS! · #5 08-19-2005, 04:15 AM

If those who:

a) intentionally inflict harm on others for self-gratification

b) kill, maim or injure others for personal benefit not absolutely necessary for survival

c) place no value on the lives of others

are not evil, then you have no concept of morality and are amoral, though not because the above conditions are true of yourself personally. And it is reprehensible to characterize someone as Hitler, albeit having sociopathic tendencies, as not evil, since to do so mitigates the seriousness of their harmful actions and denigrates the suffering of their victims.

David Sklansky · #6 08-19-2005, 04:24 AM

Poster: BluffTHIS!
Subject: Re: How James Woods Helped Me Collect My Thoughts on Morality.

"If those who:

a) intentionally inflict harm on others for self-gratification

b) kill, maim or injure others for personal benefit not absolutely necessary for survival

c) place no value on the lives of others

are not evil, then you have no concept of morality "

I agree with that. I, and James woods, claim that in real life, such a person (not including the retarded and deranged) is almost nonexistent.

Also by the way, I define evil as a lot worse than simply immoral.

BluffTHIS! · #7 08-19-2005, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that. I, and James woods, claim that in real life, such a person is almost nonexistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our american prisons are full of such murderers, rapists, and child-molesters. Many of them belonged to gangs or organized crime. My comments about not characterizing Hitler as evil applies to them as well.

David Sklansky · #8 08-19-2005, 04:49 AM

"Our american prisons are full of such murderers, rapists, and child-molesters. Many of them belonged to gangs or organized crime. My comments about not characterizing Hitler as evil applies to them as well."

I already agreed that some people can be characterized as evil and that you have a good definition of it. We just disagree about how rare those people are. Do you agree with me that suicide bombers do not fit into that category? I can tell you for sure that most Mafioso don't. And I'm almost sure that many of the other ones you named don't either. In some cases because they are flat out crazy. Do you agree that exempts them from the evil label? As for Hitler I only said he MIGHT not be evil. I would have to know his real motives to be sure.

Meanwhile given your definition of an evil person I assume you disagree with Not Ready that you need God to have absolute moral standards.

BluffTHIS! · #9 08-19-2005, 06:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I already agreed that some people can be characterized as evil and that you have a good definition of it. We just disagree about how rare those people are.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you define rare? And why does it matter if it is rare, when even a small percentage proves that such evil individuals do exist. Furthermore, those people who are imprisoned for actually committing those acts are only the ones who are caught, and does not include those whom you labeled in one of your essays as the truly evil ones who live among us who would do those things but don't only for fear of being known and or punished. And people who do those things might be crazy, but the fact that they do those things is not in itself proof of same.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with me that suicide bombers do not fit into that category?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can only not fit in that category if you believe that the end always justify the means.

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you for sure that most Mafioso don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

All "made men" in the mafia do fit that label because they got "made" by committing murder. And as far as others who cooperate with them to lesser degrees, they are enabling and perpetuating the acts of the worst in their organization, so again it applies to them though just not to the same degree as the worst.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Hitler I only said he MIGHT not be evil. I would have to know his real motives to be sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fruit shows the nature of the tree, and statements such as above are mere sophistry.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile given your definition of an evil person I assume you disagree with Not Ready that you need God to have absolute moral standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although since you have made it clear that you disdain philosophy in general, and in order reference such possible non-religious moral standards a philosophy with an ethical system would have to be seen as necessary either for yourself or for society, then there is no purpose in further discussing the matter, which is why I have not posted in the other threads on this.

andyfox · #10 08-19-2005, 11:41 AM

"As for Hitler I only said he MIGHT not be evil. I would have to know his real motives to be sure."

I think this is where your argument falls apart. Let's suppose Hitler had, in his own mind, a good reason for doing what he did. Let's say he honestly felt that Jews were reponsible for most of the world's problems and he felt he was making the world a better place by trying to exterminate them.

Feeling you're doing the right thing is not enough. The fact of the matter is that he was wrong. And six million people, many of them children who could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered responsible for the world's problems. He should have been sure of his facts before embarking on a course of action that resulted in millions of deaths. He was wrong about the influence of the Jews and wrong about how to solve the alledged problem.

My sense is that there's good and bad in everyone. I know when I'm doing something bad and while I might occasionally rationalize it with the cloak of goodness, I know the real truth. I've known a few Mafia types myself and my sense is the opposite of yours: they knew when they were being bad.