5 ms·

Brutal. Can it really be classified as evil without intention to do harm, though? It seems to me that true evil can only be if the actor knows and intends harm.

Brutal. Can it really be classified as evil without intention to do harm, though? It seems to me that true evil can only be if the actor knows and intends harm. Classifying ignorance as evil seems disingenuous - ignorance can be not only a symptom of laziness or some other self-imposed decision but also a result of circumstances out of ones control. Being a victim of circumstance does not IMO precipitate being evil.

pmarreck 7y ago
> true evil can only be if the actor knows and intends harm Between born psychopaths who seemingly can't even empathize with current or future victims https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thinking-about-kids/201205/psychopaths-children-and-evil https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thinking-about-kids/..., and criminal rational choice theory http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/rational-choice-theory/ http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theorie... which posits that even most of a criminal's willful acts are rational given their circumstance and motivations, I don't think there's a tremendous amount of room left for "true evil". I can't help wondering if history will look back on most of what we see today as "willful evils", instead as "misunderstood tragedies"... see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman whose tower sniping was initiated by... a brain tumor. The truest evil IMHO is that committed by people who believe they are doing good (but perhaps are "making the tough decision"): see the Nazis.
elbrian 7y ago
Would you consider attempting to convince an entire civilization to bend to your (lord's) will, against their own (as expressed on several occasions, spanning several decades), to be a harmful act?
anm89 7y ago
I mean, I think there is one sense where you can define evil only as the intent to be evil. In this case donating money to orphans would be evil if somehow your intent was to do harm failing to realize that you were doing good. My argument is that from a utilitarian perspective, people with good intentions doing [bad, evil, unethical, whatever] cause much more human suffering and misery than those people whose intent is evil and yet they so often are given a pass on their actions. And then either way, you could make this argument like: "why did person x choose to be evil where as person y chose to be good." That seems almost more arbitrary an likely to be biological from a detached perspective. I'd much rather judge people on their ability to deeply introspect and evaluate the world and come to good conclusions.

pmarreck 7y ago

> true evil can only be if the actor knows and intends harm Between born psychopaths who seemingly can't even empathize with current or future victims https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thinking-about-kids/201205/psychopaths-children-and-evil https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thinking-about-kids/..., and criminal rational choice theory http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/rational-choice-theory/ http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theorie... which posits that even most of a criminal's willful acts are rational given their circumstance and motivations, I don't think there's a tremendous amount of room left for "true evil". I can't help wondering if history will look back on most of what we see today as "willful evils", instead as "misunderstood tragedies"... see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman whose tower sniping was initiated by... a brain tumor. The truest evil IMHO is that committed by people who believe they are doing good (but perhaps are "making the tough decision"): see the Nazis.

elbrian 7y ago

Would you consider attempting to convince an entire civilization to bend to your (lord's) will, against their own (as expressed on several occasions, spanning several decades), to be a harmful act?

anm89 7y ago

I mean, I think there is one sense where you can define evil only as the intent to be evil. In this case donating money to orphans would be evil if somehow your intent was to do harm failing to realize that you were doing good. My argument is that from a utilitarian perspective, people with good intentions doing [bad, evil, unethical, whatever] cause much more human suffering and misery than those people whose intent is evil and yet they so often are given a pass on their actions. And then either way, you could make this argument like: "why did person x choose to be evil where as person y chose to be good." That seems almost more arbitrary an likely to be biological from a detached perspective. I'd much rather judge people on their ability to deeply introspect and evaluate the world and come to good conclusions.