How James Woods Helped Me Collect My Thoughts on Morality.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right - Steven Pinker said in one of his books that no matter what we do, we confabulate and reinterpret events and actions so that one statement is true at all times: "I am a good person, and I am in control."

Anybody who doesn't believe this may feel free to prove it experimentally by going up to some biker at a bar and saying "Hey buddy, you're an a**hole and you don't know what you're doing."

As far as institutionally-widespread evils like Nazism or slavery go, the responsibility for said evils diminishes with each new person to jump on board (given that the pressure for acquiescing to the 'norm' increases as well). So for example with slavery, some idiot on vacation in Africa gets the bright idea of bringing a black guy home with him in chains as a souvenir, and makes him a slave on his plantation. Now his company, Douchebag Cotton Co., can lower prices because they've got themselves some "free labor". From here it's quite clear how even something as horrible as slavery can be established as an institution - after Douchebag Cotton does it, then previously-respectable Acme Cotton joins in to compete, all the way on down the line until Mom and Pop Cotton feels they have to buy slaves or else they won't be able to feed their children (plus you get the ancillary idiocies like preachers searching for passages in the bible that they can make sound like a divine mandate to own slaves). So in this case, as in most cases in life, evil (to what extent that it exists) and the responsibility for it lie primarily with the Douchebags.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[craig r]

When Hannah Arendt wrote "Eichman In Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil" I think this was the point she was trying to make. That Eichmann (who was in charge of the "deportation" of he Jews) did not think what he was doing was wrong. He actually thought he was helping "everybIody", including the Jews. Another example regarding the holocaust would be the difference between Schindler's List and The Pianist. I thought the Pianist did a better job of showing how the Nazi's (and even some of the turn coat Jews) really were. They were not psychopaths. In fact, many Jews reproted, that survived the holocaust, that it was very rare for the Nazi's to act "psycopathic".

Another example I can think of is Robert McNamara in the Fog of War documentary. Did he seem like an uncaring guy. I mean I would have a cup of coffee with him. Yet, he was responsible for hundrends of thousands of deaths (if not millions). But, during the interviews you knew he was a real person. He cried when Kennedy was shot. He cried when he was discussing what he did in the past (though never apologized).

And I am not saying that McNamara and the Nazis were exactly the same, but they both claimed to be doing what they were doing in self defense. They did not do it to purposely inflict harm on others because they received some sort of pleasure out of it. It was under the guise of self defense (as almost all wars are).

Now, I realize I am using very extreme examples. But, I think it is necessary to use extreme examples when trying to prove that even people that committed horrible atrocities are not "evil", nor do they think they are "evil".

Sklansky brought up the 9/11 attacks. To use a reductionist argument and say that these people were "evil" we will never get to any of the root causes of why this happened.

Even in our current war, there is no doubt that civilians are getting killed by young men (U.S. troops). These young men know that they are doing this, yet they continue to do it anyways (okay, some have fled for Canada). Would we say that they are all sociopathic? Would we label them "evil". I mean, after all, it is a matter of "defense".

Would we label CEO's and corporations who knowingly poison people (whether intentional or not..they still know) with their pollution, chemicals, etc... "evil"? What about the Phillip Morris Company? Are they evil? They profit off of other's pain.

Okay, I am done with my 3:45 am rant. I just think that James Woods and Sklansky are right. All of the above examples go home at night, kiss their children, etc....Does this mean I agree with them? Of course not. Does it mean I am justifying what they do? Of course not.

Okay, rant not over. I am a vegan. This is by choice and not for health reasons. But, there is no doubt that these animals suffer so we can eat. They aren't just shot in the head, but have a horrible existence up until there death. Why would most people be willing to cause another sentient being pain? I don't know the answer. And I am not being self-righteous. But, we willingly cause harm. And I don't think that all of you meat eaters are "evil" or "heartless". I just think it is the "banality of evil".

End rant.

craig

p.s. What is your deal chomsky53? These are concepts that Chomsky discusses. They are not far from what Sklanksy has said. I figured you would get it. Unless it is just a troll account; i really don't know.

[Aytumious]

[ 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.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that most of those we call evil, upon closer examination really aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you insist on a weak form of morality: A person is not evil if there is a valid observer who would not consider them evil.

One could define a strong form of morality: A person is not evil if every valid observer would not consider them evil.

I do not believe either of these definitions has much use in the real world.

However my own personal moral instincts tend towards the weak definition above.

[craig r]

Sorry, it was too late for me to edit my post. But, I wanted to add, that I beleive that given the right circumstances, that anybody is pretty much capable of anything. As some of you have read other posts of mine in the other various forums, I am fairly far left (wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past liberal). If there was a draft tomorrow I would do whatever it took to get out of it. Not just because I don't want to die, but because I would fine it morally objectionable (as I am sure others would as well). But, lets just say there was nothing I could do and I had to go. And I had to fight and kill other people. Now, doing this and knowing that i am morally oppossed to killing someone, does that make me even more of an "evil" person, than lets say a hitler or kissinger? I would actually being saying fck my conscious. Where neither of these two guys thought they were doing anything wrong. So, who would actually be more evil? Hitler and Kissinger or me?

craig

Edit for: Sorry both the posts were discussing poliitics in a sense. It just seems that the greatest atrocities are usually pulled off my governments.

[txag007]

"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."

Sklanksy's original post is a great argument IN FAVOR of absolute morality. From where does this "moral code" originate? Twisted as it may be, even the criminals mention have some idea of what they ought to be doing.

[Georgia Avenue]

Nice Quote! It seems like the David's point could be taken to be: the only true crime is self-righteousness...or, more plausibly: self-righteousness is the root of all evil. Have you ever met a person without doubts and self-scrutiny who WASN’T a wacko/jerkwad? I can’t say that I have. The unexamined life is usually pretty destructive.

I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean this, but, that’s my personal deliberate misinterpretation of the Word from On High!

[andyfox]

"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.

[hmkpoker]

I agree with most if not all of what you wrote. I also don't believe in good or evil as useful concepts.

Let's take a fellow who's had a rotten upbringing, riddled himself mad with psychedelic drugs, and is now a crazed serial killer lurking in the shadows. He inflicts harm for his own pleasure. However, he views life in a very feral, LaVeyan sort of way, that human beings are all, at their core, feral, competitive animals, and by indulging in vicious acts, he lives out his existence in the highest and best way a human being can, and thereby, considers it "good."

What's the verdict?

I'm curious to hear what you think makes an evil person.


-hmk