4 ms·

And to lots of people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli and American leaderships are as close to pure evil as has ever existed. "Evil" is a conce

by brazzy 16y ago

And to lots of people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli and American leaderships are as close to pure evil as has ever existed. "Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else.

stcredzero 16y ago
Often, those who say this haven't been on the receiving end of much evil. Also, please name a government that hasn't done anything evil. There's none! Governments are dangerous things.
- brazzy 16y ago
  Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race. Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking. Calling specific people "evil" again does not explain their actions or give insights how to make them not-evil or prevent others from becoming like them. In fact, all such explanations and insights are usually strongly rejected by those who'd rather express the strongest possible revulsion for them. Finally, calling groups of people "evil" is almost always a method to dehumanize them and justify killing them, while suspending critical thought in those you want to do the killing.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    Well said - I guess I was using "evil" as a personal shorthand for my own beliefs about certain political regimes. Certainly using a label of "evil" as a shortcut to avoid any further analysis is something to be avoided.
  - zephyrfalcon 16y ago
    "Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards." True, but it isn't always about dividing things... Sometimes there's just no other word to describe certain actions or groups of people. Mentioned elsewhere in the thread were the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- what is one to say about those? "Oh, it's just a matter of perspective?" I think not.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking Okay, let me put it this way: What government hasn't done something that would cause revulsion in a bystander? None!
    - ajuc 16y ago
      So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things? Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth. I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overplaying the Holocaust card, that many countries politis, unfortunately including mine, makes victims of itself, which is indignifing and stupid thing to do. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little :) (ok, I really don't believe you wouldn't mean - I think you just play the devil advocate there).
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? That's definitely not okay. If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest against all the governments that do this all evil things? Hell, I only have 112 useful waking hours a week. If I tried to protest over every egregious thing perpetrated by a government, that would be a full time occupation. Heck, just keeping track of those things would be. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little AHEM! If you read the parent comments, you'll find that I am advocating the applicability of the term evil! Your comment is so full of putting words into other's mouths, grasping for straws, and unwarranted leaps, I don't know where to begin.
        ajuc 16y ago
        Ok, I'm sorry. I've overreacted to this post and somehow mixed in my mind who is replying to whom (by not reading all posts in between, my fault, should teach me to think before posting). I've interpreted your statement that all countries did sth wrong as statement that Nazi Germany, USSR were no worse than other countries, and their deeds were nothing more evil than deeds of other countries. Should have deleted my comment, but that way it will remind me to read whole thread before replying.
- brazzy 16y ago
  As for governments, their danger lies in their size and authoritarian power structures, which lets people on top give orders without taking responsibility for how those orders are implemented. Non-government organizations of similar size are just as good at perpetrating evil, when they get the chance. Fortunately, few private companies are allowed to participate in wars.
arethuza 16y ago
And for the innocents on the receiving end of some horror that is an understandable sentiment. However, for what separates the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century from today's situations is the degree to which the unimaginable suffering of individuals was known about and dictated by those in power rather than being a tragic side-effect of other misguided policies.
cturner 16y ago
"Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else. Really? Can you read _Lord of the Flies_ and conclude that what the boys are doing isn't evil, because all ethics are relative?
- brazzy 16y ago
  It's not about ehtics being relative, it's about "evil" being a label that's used to condemn (often falsely) and discourage discussion. Seeing WWII completely in terms of how valiant US soldiers defeated the evil Nazis is a great way to avoid noticing tendencies in the US that the Nazis would feel right at home with.
  - cturner 16y ago
    It's not about ehtics being relative That's the message from the post I responded to, and that's what I'm responding to. You contradicted arethuza, and basically implied that arethuza'a ideas about pure evil were invalid. They're not. It's easy to become so consumed with something that you throw the baby out with the bathwater, which you did above in claiming that evil had little use apart from propaganda. That's false. Evil is an idea that stands on its own, and is important in our thinking.
- btilly 16y ago
  News Flash. The Lord of the Flies is fiction. Evil is a very useful way to understand fiction because the "reality" it exists in is made-up and fits the description. In the real world evil is much more ambiguous, and is mostly a tool for helping convince people that one side is awful and the other must therefore be right. The fact that people are wired to react that way makes it very useful for propaganda.

by brazzy 16y ago

stcredzero 16y ago

Often, those who say this haven't been on the receiving end of much evil. Also, please name a government that hasn't done anything evil. There's none! Governments are dangerous things.

brazzy 16y ago
Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race. Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking. Calling specific people "evil" again does not explain their actions or give insights how to make them not-evil or prevent others from becoming like them. In fact, all such explanations and insights are usually strongly rejected by those who'd rather express the strongest possible revulsion for them. Finally, calling groups of people "evil" is almost always a method to dehumanize them and justify killing them, while suspending critical thought in those you want to do the killing.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Well said - I guess I was using "evil" as a personal shorthand for my own beliefs about certain political regimes. Certainly using a label of "evil" as a shortcut to avoid any further analysis is something to be avoided.
- zephyrfalcon 16y ago
  "Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards." True, but it isn't always about dividing things... Sometimes there's just no other word to describe certain actions or groups of people. Mentioned elsewhere in the thread were the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- what is one to say about those? "Oh, it's just a matter of perspective?" I think not.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking Okay, let me put it this way: What government hasn't done something that would cause revulsion in a bystander? None!
  - ajuc 16y ago
    So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things? Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth. I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overplaying the Holocaust card, that many countries politis, unfortunately including mine, makes victims of itself, which is indignifing and stupid thing to do. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little :) (ok, I really don't believe you wouldn't mean - I think you just play the devil advocate there).
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? That's definitely not okay. If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest against all the governments that do this all evil things? Hell, I only have 112 useful waking hours a week. If I tried to protest over every egregious thing perpetrated by a government, that would be a full time occupation. Heck, just keeping track of those things would be. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little AHEM! If you read the parent comments, you'll find that I am advocating the applicability of the term evil! Your comment is so full of putting words into other's mouths, grasping for straws, and unwarranted leaps, I don't know where to begin.
      - ajuc 16y ago
        Ok, I'm sorry. I've overreacted to this post and somehow mixed in my mind who is replying to whom (by not reading all posts in between, my fault, should teach me to think before posting). I've interpreted your statement that all countries did sth wrong as statement that Nazi Germany, USSR were no worse than other countries, and their deeds were nothing more evil than deeds of other countries. Should have deleted my comment, but that way it will remind me to read whole thread before replying.
brazzy 16y ago
As for governments, their danger lies in their size and authoritarian power structures, which lets people on top give orders without taking responsibility for how those orders are implemented. Non-government organizations of similar size are just as good at perpetrating evil, when they get the chance. Fortunately, few private companies are allowed to participate in wars.

arethuza 16y ago

And for the innocents on the receiving end of some horror that is an understandable sentiment. However, for what separates the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century from today's situations is the degree to which the unimaginable suffering of individuals was known about and dictated by those in power rather than being a tragic side-effect of other misguided policies.

cturner 16y ago

"Evil" is a concept useful for propaganda and little else. Really? Can you read _Lord of the Flies_ and conclude that what the boys are doing isn't evil, because all ethics are relative?

brazzy 16y ago
It's not about ehtics being relative, it's about "evil" being a label that's used to condemn (often falsely) and discourage discussion. Seeing WWII completely in terms of how valiant US soldiers defeated the evil Nazis is a great way to avoid noticing tendencies in the US that the Nazis would feel right at home with.
- cturner 16y ago
  It's not about ehtics being relative That's the message from the post I responded to, and that's what I'm responding to. You contradicted arethuza, and basically implied that arethuza'a ideas about pure evil were invalid. They're not. It's easy to become so consumed with something that you throw the baby out with the bathwater, which you did above in claiming that evil had little use apart from propaganda. That's false. Evil is an idea that stands on its own, and is important in our thinking.
btilly 16y ago
News Flash. The Lord of the Flies is fiction. Evil is a very useful way to understand fiction because the "reality" it exists in is made-up and fits the description. In the real world evil is much more ambiguous, and is mostly a tool for helping convince people that one side is awful and the other must therefore be right. The fact that people are wired to react that way makes it very useful for propaganda.