4 ms·

These thoughts struck me as well in one form or another. > “If philosophy was unable to identify evil, then there was a major problem with philosophy” Why is

These thoughts struck me as well in one form or another. > “If philosophy was unable to identify evil, then there was a major problem with philosophy” Why is it imperative that philosophy is able to identify "evil", and to what extent? Is identifying something as "evil" subjectively somehow not good enough for me to condemn it or act upon it?

avhception 5y ago
Reflecting further upon that, might that aspiration for philosophy ultimately stem from a yearning to be freed from the burden of making subjective moral judgements? A yearning for a one-size-fits-all kind of morale that can be universally applied?
prox 5y ago
I think this is the corner of “categorization” philosophies. Items and topics are categorized and valued/labeled in certain boxes or intersections in heavy handed way. Those philosophies get stuck in their own trappings where complexity gets to great, that is why I love more organic philosophers like Gilles Deleuze. Morality is both emotional and rational, it is part of the psychological make up. And indeed you are right that philosophy as wielded in a pure linguistic structure won’t get you very far, I mean they might yield interesting insights, but they are limited by their own rules often.
krisoft 5y ago
> Why is it imperative that philosophy is able to identify "evil", and to what extent? There are many branches of philosophy and it is perfectly fine for a philosopher to study other topics. Ethics, or moral philosophy is a branch which “involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior”. If you set out to practice this particular branch you will be asked what is your opinion on behaviours commonly refered as “evil”. That is “evil” don’t have to be a technical term in your moral philosophy, but it will be one of the edge cases it will be evaluated on. So it is not imperative that philosophy identify “evil” but if someone sets out to talk right and wrong and their system of thinking results in sillyness in practical cases then that system is not worth much. > Is identifying something as "evil" subjectively somehow not good enough for me to condemn it or act upon it? Maybe. It can make collective action hard. Lets say there is a group of people who spends their time finding people with freckles. They then torture them and murder them. It is kind of their hobby. And someone else says “this is terrible and we must stop them”. They alone are weak and powerless, can only stop the “hobbyist” if enough people agrees to do something (like for example setting up a police force and outlawing murder) If then and then a moral philosopher drifts by and says “my dude, you should chill out. You think murdering people with freckles is bad, they think it is not. You should work on accepting other people more.” That kind of talk, if taken seriously, will not result in collective action and in effect will let the murders continue. And then we can scratch our head and think if it was the right outcome.
igravious 5y ago
Because evil is a fundamental (abstract) concept enmeshed in the moral, spiritual, and religious domains of life. If philosophy is anything it is the study of deeply interwoven fundamental abstract concepts. Because the problem (what is it? why does it exist in the first place? if there is a god and god is good why would/could there be evil at all – etc.) of evil is felt to be of such significance it would be noteworthy that philosophy did not have the tools to take it apart and inspect it from all angles. It would indicate not that our conception of evil was flawed but that there was something majorly lacking with the discipline of philosophy. That'd be my take on it. The same would go for any fundamental abstract concept.

avhception 5y ago

Reflecting further upon that, might that aspiration for philosophy ultimately stem from a yearning to be freed from the burden of making subjective moral judgements? A yearning for a one-size-fits-all kind of morale that can be universally applied?

prox 5y ago

I think this is the corner of “categorization” philosophies. Items and topics are categorized and valued/labeled in certain boxes or intersections in heavy handed way. Those philosophies get stuck in their own trappings where complexity gets to great, that is why I love more organic philosophers like Gilles Deleuze. Morality is both emotional and rational, it is part of the psychological make up. And indeed you are right that philosophy as wielded in a pure linguistic structure won’t get you very far, I mean they might yield interesting insights, but they are limited by their own rules often.

krisoft 5y ago

> Why is it imperative that philosophy is able to identify "evil", and to what extent? There are many branches of philosophy and it is perfectly fine for a philosopher to study other topics. Ethics, or moral philosophy is a branch which “involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior”. If you set out to practice this particular branch you will be asked what is your opinion on behaviours commonly refered as “evil”. That is “evil” don’t have to be a technical term in your moral philosophy, but it will be one of the edge cases it will be evaluated on. So it is not imperative that philosophy identify “evil” but if someone sets out to talk right and wrong and their system of thinking results in sillyness in practical cases then that system is not worth much. > Is identifying something as "evil" subjectively somehow not good enough for me to condemn it or act upon it? Maybe. It can make collective action hard. Lets say there is a group of people who spends their time finding people with freckles. They then torture them and murder them. It is kind of their hobby. And someone else says “this is terrible and we must stop them”. They alone are weak and powerless, can only stop the “hobbyist” if enough people agrees to do something (like for example setting up a police force and outlawing murder) If then and then a moral philosopher drifts by and says “my dude, you should chill out. You think murdering people with freckles is bad, they think it is not. You should work on accepting other people more.” That kind of talk, if taken seriously, will not result in collective action and in effect will let the murders continue. And then we can scratch our head and think if it was the right outcome.

igravious 5y ago

Because evil is a fundamental (abstract) concept enmeshed in the moral, spiritual, and religious domains of life. If philosophy is anything it is the study of deeply interwoven fundamental abstract concepts. Because the problem (what is it? why does it exist in the first place? if there is a god and god is good why would/could there be evil at all – etc.) of evil is felt to be of such significance it would be noteworthy that philosophy did not have the tools to take it apart and inspect it from all angles. It would indicate not that our conception of evil was flawed but that there was something majorly lacking with the discipline of philosophy. That'd be my take on it. The same would go for any fundamental abstract concept.