8 ms·

We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.

by fukusa 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Unfortunately this is a very widespread notion in culture and is helped by major religions.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  I wonder how true that is. For Christianity at least, most dominant theology takes the view that the things that exist in the world can be used for good or for ill and aren't inherently one or the other in and of themselves.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    Same with Buddhism
copperred 11y ago
That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.
- bitslayer 11y ago
  Surely you can see that they think the exact opposite. In order to do something like that, they have to convince themselves that they the good guys, and it has to be done to "purify the evil in the world" or something. The truth is that people are not inherently bad. Evil feeds on itself; if you insist on calling them bad, then you are falling into the same trap that they did. Hopefully you wouldn't act in such a heinous manner, but Western societies kill thousands of innocents all the time, and it is masked with the same rationalizations; if a drone strike kills someone, we define them as a bad guy.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    > The truth is that people are not inherently bad. I don't know about that. I'd argue that most people don't think of themselves as bad, but it doesn't make them not-bad. And humanity definitely has base instincts - if we didn't, we wouldn't need governments and police.
    - delish 11y ago
      > but it doesn't make them not-bad. I disagree. I've never found a coherent absolute ethical framework. Not even "Don't kill people." When anyone is arguing that something is bad, that person has to appeal an authority or belief. Often the reasoning leads to utilitarianism: "If we want society to continue, we should ban murder." But that's still an if/then statement. Beneath the if/then is an appeal that society is good or desired. > And humanity definitely has base instincts - if we didn't, we wouldn't need governments and police. This viewpoint becomes popular with Hobbes in the 1600s. I disagree with the term "base instincts," which negatively connotes those things. I'll change it to "randomness"; i.e. in a society of nondeterministic people, some will try to kill the others. Government and police try to reduce that kind of randomness. But from that same randomness we get music, science, justice. I'm speaking loosely of course. I think of my American government as social contract, not as protective parent.
      - johncolanduoni 11y ago
        > I'll change it to "randomness"; i.e. in a society of nondeterministic people, some will try to kill the others. I think "randomness" is even worse, because it makes it sound like these actions could be expected from anyone at anytime. Statistically, a small portion of the population is responsible for most of the violence, through repeat offenses. Also, in many situations there are clear warning signs (e.g. mentally ill with clear homicidal ideation, member of a gang). Are you really arguing that a dice roll is a good fundamental model for human behavior? Nondeterminism (assuming humans are truly nondeterministic) doesn't really matter here, except for the fact that we don't have a way of precisely predicting people's behavior (and may never have one). If it turns out that humans are just complicated, deterministic machines that we can not feasibly predict, the reasons for which we have developed societal structures do not disappear. > But from that same randomness we get music, science, justice. I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the first two and violence. I agree that the third is a bit trickier. If what you mean is that the exercise of both these and the dispositions-formerly-known-as-base-instincts are a result of allowing for a significant measure of personal freedom, I'll agree with you. But writing human behavior off as having no more structure than a random number generator ignores a lot of predictive and explanative power that we do actually have.
- AlexB138 11y ago
  Actually, that's an entirely subjective statement. While I think they're monsters, many people feel that western culture is immoral and downright evil. To people who have seen nothing but the West waging war in their region, these people may appear to be freedom fighters dying for a noble cause. Good and Evil are entirely a matter of perspective.
- smcl 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say or what you think the OP and GP are, but saying "the Paris attackers were bad" doesn't really add much so you might need to clarify.
- caoilte 11y ago
  In the spirit of rapprochement, how about we say bad vs bad people?
  - vmattos 11y ago
    Depends on what you consider as bad people. One could easily say that both east and west worlds are bad or evil
- fukusa 11y ago
  The problem is that by calling them 'bad people' you imply that they committed the crime because they were 'bad people'. And that's the core of the problem. They were not 'bad people' before they committed the crime. They were just people in need of help. By focusing on how they were 'bad people' you make it seem like you haven't contributed to the problem and there is no other solution then to fight them (using violence) while in fact there are many things we could have done differently and many things we still can do to prevent these crimes from happening. The fact is that it's much easier to blame it on them for being 'bad people' then to look at the consequences of our own actions.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    This sounds uncomfortably close to victim blaming.
    - fukusa 11y ago
      I am not blaming the victims at all. For example: You could call many people living in the hood 'bad people' because of the crimes they commit but are they really 'bad people' or do they eventually commit these crimes because of the situation they grow up in and the disadvantages they have had in life? By stating this, am I blaming the victims of armed robberies, of theft of murder? Of course I am not. I just think we should have a nuanced rational discussion about how we can prevent crimes instead of discussing about offenders and victims, bad people and good people.
      - TrevorJ 11y ago
        That's fair, I think I see where you are coming from now. I do think, however, that we have to be careful not to remove personal responsibility from the equation. Circumstances can certainly motivate behaviour but we are still responsible for our actions. Suggesting otherwise seems compassionate on the surface, but it can also be incredibly disempowering and corrosive.
        mercurial 11y ago
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  They carried out a successful military action that furthered their goals. And they killed far fewer people than many of the military operations we have engaged in. They are only bad because they didn't follow our rules of war and weren't us. (We often defend our own who don't follow our rules of war; see all those defending torture of detainees.) They are bad, we are bad. The only not bad involved in all of this is the little children who we both have hurt, and even then those children will grow up and become what the other side considers bad.
TrevorJ 11y ago
It doesn't just remove nuance, the entire framework of the discussion is built on untruths when we start there.
allemagne 11y ago
I don't see the point to inserting a philosophical debate about good and evil here. What nuance are you trying to keep?

We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.

by fukusa 11y ago

We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Unfortunately this is a very widespread notion in culture and is helped by major religions.

TrevorJ 11y ago
I wonder how true that is. For Christianity at least, most dominant theology takes the view that the things that exist in the world can be used for good or for ill and aren't inherently one or the other in and of themselves.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Same with Buddhism

copperred 11y ago

That's the point. What the Paris attackers did makes them bad people. It's not up for debate.

bitslayer 11y ago
Surely you can see that they think the exact opposite. In order to do something like that, they have to convince themselves that they the good guys, and it has to be done to "purify the evil in the world" or something. The truth is that people are not inherently bad. Evil feeds on itself; if you insist on calling them bad, then you are falling into the same trap that they did. Hopefully you wouldn't act in such a heinous manner, but Western societies kill thousands of innocents all the time, and it is masked with the same rationalizations; if a drone strike kills someone, we define them as a bad guy.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > The truth is that people are not inherently bad. I don't know about that. I'd argue that most people don't think of themselves as bad, but it doesn't make them not-bad. And humanity definitely has base instincts - if we didn't, we wouldn't need governments and police.
  - delish 11y ago
    > but it doesn't make them not-bad. I disagree. I've never found a coherent absolute ethical framework. Not even "Don't kill people." When anyone is arguing that something is bad, that person has to appeal an authority or belief. Often the reasoning leads to utilitarianism: "If we want society to continue, we should ban murder." But that's still an if/then statement. Beneath the if/then is an appeal that society is good or desired. > And humanity definitely has base instincts - if we didn't, we wouldn't need governments and police. This viewpoint becomes popular with Hobbes in the 1600s. I disagree with the term "base instincts," which negatively connotes those things. I'll change it to "randomness"; i.e. in a society of nondeterministic people, some will try to kill the others. Government and police try to reduce that kind of randomness. But from that same randomness we get music, science, justice. I'm speaking loosely of course. I think of my American government as social contract, not as protective parent.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      > I'll change it to "randomness"; i.e. in a society of nondeterministic people, some will try to kill the others. I think "randomness" is even worse, because it makes it sound like these actions could be expected from anyone at anytime. Statistically, a small portion of the population is responsible for most of the violence, through repeat offenses. Also, in many situations there are clear warning signs (e.g. mentally ill with clear homicidal ideation, member of a gang). Are you really arguing that a dice roll is a good fundamental model for human behavior? Nondeterminism (assuming humans are truly nondeterministic) doesn't really matter here, except for the fact that we don't have a way of precisely predicting people's behavior (and may never have one). If it turns out that humans are just complicated, deterministic machines that we can not feasibly predict, the reasons for which we have developed societal structures do not disappear. > But from that same randomness we get music, science, justice. I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the first two and violence. I agree that the third is a bit trickier. If what you mean is that the exercise of both these and the dispositions-formerly-known-as-base-instincts are a result of allowing for a significant measure of personal freedom, I'll agree with you. But writing human behavior off as having no more structure than a random number generator ignores a lot of predictive and explanative power that we do actually have.
AlexB138 11y ago
Actually, that's an entirely subjective statement. While I think they're monsters, many people feel that western culture is immoral and downright evil. To people who have seen nothing but the West waging war in their region, these people may appear to be freedom fighters dying for a noble cause. Good and Evil are entirely a matter of perspective.
smcl 11y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say or what you think the OP and GP are, but saying "the Paris attackers were bad" doesn't really add much so you might need to clarify.
caoilte 11y ago
In the spirit of rapprochement, how about we say bad vs bad people?
- vmattos 11y ago
  Depends on what you consider as bad people. One could easily say that both east and west worlds are bad or evil
fukusa 11y ago
The problem is that by calling them 'bad people' you imply that they committed the crime because they were 'bad people'. And that's the core of the problem. They were not 'bad people' before they committed the crime. They were just people in need of help. By focusing on how they were 'bad people' you make it seem like you haven't contributed to the problem and there is no other solution then to fight them (using violence) while in fact there are many things we could have done differently and many things we still can do to prevent these crimes from happening. The fact is that it's much easier to blame it on them for being 'bad people' then to look at the consequences of our own actions.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  This sounds uncomfortably close to victim blaming.
  - fukusa 11y ago
    I am not blaming the victims at all. For example: You could call many people living in the hood 'bad people' because of the crimes they commit but are they really 'bad people' or do they eventually commit these crimes because of the situation they grow up in and the disadvantages they have had in life? By stating this, am I blaming the victims of armed robberies, of theft of murder? Of course I am not. I just think we should have a nuanced rational discussion about how we can prevent crimes instead of discussing about offenders and victims, bad people and good people.
    - TrevorJ 11y ago
      That's fair, I think I see where you are coming from now. I do think, however, that we have to be careful not to remove personal responsibility from the equation. Circumstances can certainly motivate behaviour but we are still responsible for our actions. Suggesting otherwise seems compassionate on the surface, but it can also be incredibly disempowering and corrosive.
      - mercurial 11y ago
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
They carried out a successful military action that furthered their goals. And they killed far fewer people than many of the military operations we have engaged in. They are only bad because they didn't follow our rules of war and weren't us. (We often defend our own who don't follow our rules of war; see all those defending torture of detainees.) They are bad, we are bad. The only not bad involved in all of this is the little children who we both have hurt, and even then those children will grow up and become what the other side considers bad.

TrevorJ 11y ago

It doesn't just remove nuance, the entire framework of the discussion is built on untruths when we start there.

allemagne 11y ago

I don't see the point to inserting a philosophical debate about good and evil here. What nuance are you trying to keep?