4 ms·

Am I just showcasing my own ignorance by wanting support for this claim? I've heard it stated elsewhere, but I've never heard a detailed argument supporting it

Am I just showcasing my own ignorance by wanting support for this claim? I've heard it stated elsewhere, but I've never heard a detailed argument supporting it. The closest justification I recall hearing is a vague reference to the Spanish Inquisition.

the_lonely_road 6y ago
Mother Teresa is likely to be a good example as long as you believe she thought she was doing gods work and agree that the details of how she did that are reprehensible.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  What is reprehensible about how she did what she did?
  - _jal 6y ago
    As with most things, Wikipedia will get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa A relevant quote from there summarizing some of them: "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, ... her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce".
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Her "overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce" are, I suspect, orthodox Catholic doctrine. As for the rest, critics criticize. She sure wasn't using the money she received to get personally rich. She was working with/caring for people that nobody else was. While less than perfect, I'm not seeing "reprehensible" anywhere in the substance of the criticism. (Read the "Responses to criticism" section of that article for a decent explanation of why most of the criticism is completely missing the point.)
      - coliveira 6y ago
        This is not the main point of the criticism. The issue is that she raised millions in money that was not used for her cause of taking care of suffering people in India. Instead, the bulk of the money was sent to religious causes and to the Vatican.
dionidium 6y ago
I think where you really see this is in any case where one group identifies another group that they perceive to be their oppressor and then having done so, imagine themselves to be justified in leveling a retributive response. (The example I used in another comment above was the mass enslavement and starvation of the kulaks in revolutionary Russia on the grounds that they had been oppressors of the proletariat.)
inglor_cz 6y ago
At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was really, really convinced that Jews were evil schemers that dealt in betrayal, fraud and conspiracy against innocent and naive Gentiles. And that their destruction was a necessary step to cleanse the Earth off their evil. The end result: Auschwitz.
- spijdar 6y ago
  It goes back even further, actually, and provides another data-point for this aphorism. The Teutonic Order, a sort of ... indirect relative/precursor [0] to the German Empire/Republic which the Nazis grew in was notorious for doing some really horrific things in the name of God, and in trying to force convert the lands north of Prussia/Poland. The surrounding Christians states didn't really approve of this, and eventually pushed them back. They seemed to be pretty obsessed themselves with the idea that other Christians were backstabbing and betraying their cause. It seems their cause was, originally, in good intentions. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at least. But it's clear by the end they fulfilled this aphorism, and became a great evil by trying to fight evil. [0] The Teutonic Order held land, the "Deutschordensstaat". When Martin Luther convinced the then-Grand-Master Albert to convert, he turned that land into a secular state, the Duchy of Prussia, which became the Kingdom of Prussia, which became the leading state of the German Empire.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  I agree, but I also imagine all those fighting the Nazis also thought they were fighting evil. Should they have "beware fighting evil"?
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Carpet bombing of German cities was, in hindsight, probably not just evil but militarily inefficient. The official goal - to disrupt industrial production - was never really achieved.
  - benjohnson 6y ago
    Yes. After seeing what the Nazis had done, those that fought the Nazis would have been justified in exacting immediate justice by killing all of them. Thankfully - they didn't.
bena 6y ago
If you believe your enemy is truly and irredeemably evil, what tactics are allowed to eradicate that evil? Technically, anything should be allowed, because removing that evil from the world would be an undeniable good. To find that evil, you should be allowed to do anything to anyone trying to hide that evil from you. As a matter of fact, anyone trying to shelter that evil or sides with that evil shares some of the guilt as well. They are just as evil as the evil you wish to eradicate. So, once again, nothing is off limits. Ridicule? Allowed. Lying to them? Allowed. Stealing from them? Allowed. Torture? Allowed. Murder? Allowed. And if you're allowed to do these things and actually do them, at what point are you not just a different flavor of the same evil? What separates you from them? The only thing you needed to become your most depraved self was an excuse. Some actions are wrong. And there are some lines we shouldn't cross. No matter how evil you think someone is, that does not justify certain actions. And some actions should only be reserved for certain circumstances and those circumstances never happen to be "I think he's evil".
- fwip 6y ago
  Quoth dril, the scholar of our times: > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron" https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
tarboreus 6y ago
Think about the people who did the most evil things you can think of. Were they really certain they were fighting evil? Contrast with people who you think were admirable. Did they think they were fighting evil? These are aphorisms, not essays. You either recognize (high-level) wisdom in them, or you don't.
- CoastalCoder 6y ago
  > These are aphorisms, not essays. That's a good observation. I agree that it's reasonable to treat them as aphorisms. But even if we allow for a certain amount of hyperbole in aphorisms, I would think there's some threshold of factual accuracy that we want before accepting a given aphorism. That, and simple curiosity, are what motivated my original question.
quickthrowman 6y ago
Torquemada, Robespierre, Lenin, Cromwell. You already mentioned the Spanish Inquisition, so we’ll skip Torquemada. Robespierre was for a French Republic, and was willing to kill whomever to get it, and was eventually guillotined himself. Lenin helped end Tsarist Russia, then purged a bunch of people during the Red Terror. Cromwell helped create a republic after killing a tyrant that believed in the divine right of kings and didn’t want a constitutional monarchy, and then more or less genocided Irish Catholics.

the_lonely_road 6y ago

Mother Teresa is likely to be a good example as long as you believe she thought she was doing gods work and agree that the details of how she did that are reprehensible.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
What is reprehensible about how she did what she did?
- _jal 6y ago
  As with most things, Wikipedia will get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa A relevant quote from there summarizing some of them: "caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, ... her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce".
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Her "overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce" are, I suspect, orthodox Catholic doctrine. As for the rest, critics criticize. She sure wasn't using the money she received to get personally rich. She was working with/caring for people that nobody else was. While less than perfect, I'm not seeing "reprehensible" anywhere in the substance of the criticism. (Read the "Responses to criticism" section of that article for a decent explanation of why most of the criticism is completely missing the point.)
    - coliveira 6y ago
      This is not the main point of the criticism. The issue is that she raised millions in money that was not used for her cause of taking care of suffering people in India. Instead, the bulk of the money was sent to religious causes and to the Vatican.

dionidium 6y ago

I think where you really see this is in any case where one group identifies another group that they perceive to be their oppressor and then having done so, imagine themselves to be justified in leveling a retributive response. (The example I used in another comment above was the mass enslavement and starvation of the kulaks in revolutionary Russia on the grounds that they had been oppressors of the proletariat.)

inglor_cz 6y ago

At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was really, really convinced that Jews were evil schemers that dealt in betrayal, fraud and conspiracy against innocent and naive Gentiles. And that their destruction was a necessary step to cleanse the Earth off their evil. The end result: Auschwitz.

spijdar 6y ago
It goes back even further, actually, and provides another data-point for this aphorism. The Teutonic Order, a sort of ... indirect relative/precursor [0] to the German Empire/Republic which the Nazis grew in was notorious for doing some really horrific things in the name of God, and in trying to force convert the lands north of Prussia/Poland. The surrounding Christians states didn't really approve of this, and eventually pushed them back. They seemed to be pretty obsessed themselves with the idea that other Christians were backstabbing and betraying their cause. It seems their cause was, originally, in good intentions. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at least. But it's clear by the end they fulfilled this aphorism, and became a great evil by trying to fight evil. [0] The Teutonic Order held land, the "Deutschordensstaat". When Martin Luther convinced the then-Grand-Master Albert to convert, he turned that land into a secular state, the Duchy of Prussia, which became the Kingdom of Prussia, which became the leading state of the German Empire.
CJefferson 6y ago
I agree, but I also imagine all those fighting the Nazis also thought they were fighting evil. Should they have "beware fighting evil"?
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Carpet bombing of German cities was, in hindsight, probably not just evil but militarily inefficient. The official goal - to disrupt industrial production - was never really achieved.
- benjohnson 6y ago
  Yes. After seeing what the Nazis had done, those that fought the Nazis would have been justified in exacting immediate justice by killing all of them. Thankfully - they didn't.

bena 6y ago

If you believe your enemy is truly and irredeemably evil, what tactics are allowed to eradicate that evil? Technically, anything should be allowed, because removing that evil from the world would be an undeniable good. To find that evil, you should be allowed to do anything to anyone trying to hide that evil from you. As a matter of fact, anyone trying to shelter that evil or sides with that evil shares some of the guilt as well. They are just as evil as the evil you wish to eradicate. So, once again, nothing is off limits. Ridicule? Allowed. Lying to them? Allowed. Stealing from them? Allowed. Torture? Allowed. Murder? Allowed. And if you're allowed to do these things and actually do them, at what point are you not just a different flavor of the same evil? What separates you from them? The only thing you needed to become your most depraved self was an excuse. Some actions are wrong. And there are some lines we shouldn't cross. No matter how evil you think someone is, that does not justify certain actions. And some actions should only be reserved for certain circumstances and those circumstances never happen to be "I think he's evil".

fwip 6y ago
Quoth dril, the scholar of our times: > the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron" https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312

tarboreus 6y ago

Think about the people who did the most evil things you can think of. Were they really certain they were fighting evil? Contrast with people who you think were admirable. Did they think they were fighting evil? These are aphorisms, not essays. You either recognize (high-level) wisdom in them, or you don't.

CoastalCoder 6y ago
> These are aphorisms, not essays. That's a good observation. I agree that it's reasonable to treat them as aphorisms. But even if we allow for a certain amount of hyperbole in aphorisms, I would think there's some threshold of factual accuracy that we want before accepting a given aphorism. That, and simple curiosity, are what motivated my original question.

quickthrowman 6y ago

Torquemada, Robespierre, Lenin, Cromwell. You already mentioned the Spanish Inquisition, so we’ll skip Torquemada. Robespierre was for a French Republic, and was willing to kill whomever to get it, and was eventually guillotined himself. Lenin helped end Tsarist Russia, then purged a bunch of people during the Red Terror. Cromwell helped create a republic after killing a tyrant that believed in the divine right of kings and didn’t want a constitutional monarchy, and then more or less genocided Irish Catholics.