6 ms·

Not unrelated at all. We judge ourselves by our intentions. We judge others by their actions. This leads to people with evil actions judging themselves as go

by 300bps 4y ago

Not unrelated at all. We judge ourselves by our intentions. We judge others by their actions. This leads to people with evil actions judging themselves as good. “I didn’t want to do it. They gave me no choice.”

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Do you think Adolf Eichmann saw himself as evil? I do not. He was “following orders” and thereby being good soldier. I would bet Hitler and Stalin also believed themselves to be good people. Same for most all dictators and mass murderers.
- xeromal 4y ago
  Agreed. I don't think anyone can truly see themselves as evil. I think it would go against our very nature of self-preservation. The rare few that do probably commit suicide. I'm reminded of some murderers that know what they are doing is wrong and knowing they're mentally unwell and end up killing themselves.
  - macdust 4y ago
    I knew some who claimed to be evil, whose only regret was not being more famous for it.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I assume you're familiar, but a whole book was written about the various forms of evil perpetuated by the Nazi leadership. Eichmann isn't a good example- he knew he wasn't just following orders. The example you're thinking of is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel who apparently wasn't even smart enough to realize the magnitude of what he was doing.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Yes, thanks for the clarification. My point still stands: I don’t think many people consider themselves evil or even consistently “doing bad”
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I think it's a mistake to believe they all believed in good and evil in the first place. I don't. Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination. Social life, in that respect, is actually just conflict. Attempting to make ones will seem objective are what concepts like "good" and "evil" are for. Ethics should rather be focused on what we all want and equitable conflict resolution. Anyway, I think a lot of those people just reject the concepts as well, but probably for less enlightened reasons.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    >Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination I wonder how you decided that. Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters. It goes by different names: loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much?
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, because it was subjective judgement, our emotions, all along, evolved to help us cooperate. Now, if it's not objective, then we know that people claiming it to be are either deluded or doing so in order to make their own will the norm (which philosophers love to do.) > loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. This confounds good and evil with ethics itself. Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. > If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much? Obviously to get people to do what they wanted and that's exactly how it was always used by religious institutions which subsisted as parasites more often than not.
      - JackFr 4y ago
        > Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by 300bps 4y ago

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

Do you think Adolf Eichmann saw himself as evil? I do not. He was “following orders” and thereby being good soldier. I would bet Hitler and Stalin also believed themselves to be good people. Same for most all dictators and mass murderers.

xeromal 4y ago
Agreed. I don't think anyone can truly see themselves as evil. I think it would go against our very nature of self-preservation. The rare few that do probably commit suicide. I'm reminded of some murderers that know what they are doing is wrong and knowing they're mentally unwell and end up killing themselves.
- macdust 4y ago
  I knew some who claimed to be evil, whose only regret was not being more famous for it.
dekhn 4y ago
I assume you're familiar, but a whole book was written about the various forms of evil perpetuated by the Nazi leadership. Eichmann isn't a good example- he knew he wasn't just following orders. The example you're thinking of is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel who apparently wasn't even smart enough to realize the magnitude of what he was doing.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Yes, thanks for the clarification. My point still stands: I don’t think many people consider themselves evil or even consistently “doing bad”
guerrilla 4y ago
I think it's a mistake to believe they all believed in good and evil in the first place. I don't. Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination. Social life, in that respect, is actually just conflict. Attempting to make ones will seem objective are what concepts like "good" and "evil" are for. Ethics should rather be focused on what we all want and equitable conflict resolution. Anyway, I think a lot of those people just reject the concepts as well, but probably for less enlightened reasons.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  >Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination I wonder how you decided that. Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters. It goes by different names: loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, because it was subjective judgement, our emotions, all along, evolved to help us cooperate. Now, if it's not objective, then we know that people claiming it to be are either deluded or doing so in order to make their own will the norm (which philosophers love to do.) > loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. This confounds good and evil with ethics itself. Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. > If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much? Obviously to get people to do what they wanted and that's exactly how it was always used by religious institutions which subsisted as parasites more often than not.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      > Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]