3 ms·

1. You claimed that the difference between the cop and Hitler is one of scale. The poster above was explaining that it's not: had Hitler gassed a single Jewish

1. You claimed that the difference between the cop and Hitler is one of scale. The poster above was explaining that it's not: had Hitler gassed a single Jewish person, just like the cop shot a single knife wielder, Hitler would still be morally evil and the cop would be morally good. Now, about your "evil = wrongness * certainty * power" argument - this assumes that all people are fundamentally good, but potentially misguided. This view is incompatible with the foundations of law (intent to commit a crime is a basic part of penal law in virtually every legal system), and with the most basic intuitions of most people, so I find it very hard to defend. To many people, the end that justifies their means is simply their own well-being. When someone breaks into a home to steal a TV, they aren't doing so because they strongly believe the TV belongs to them. They do so because they believe this is a good way for them to get a TV (or the equivalent in money). They are often very right about that fact. That does not make them any less evil for taking my TV.

boxed 3y ago
1. Shooting someone is evil, if we remove all context. Killing is evil, if we remove all context. But that's the thing, it's all about the context. > They do so because they believe this is a good way for them to get a TV (or the equivalent in money). Well.. maybe. They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay. They might also be desperate, and in that case it's not much of an evil in the first place. That's the entire plot of Les Miserables :P
- simiones 3y ago
  > They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay. This is far from obvious. Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught. Also, plenty of people who commit less evil acts but from similar motivations (such as assuming credit for a colleague's work to ascend the corporate ladder) are virtually guaranteed to live richer lives than those who don't. Few politicians ever get elected if they don't lie at least some of the time, to any position above mayor maybe. Very few corrupt officials are ever caught, or ever lose their fortunes if caught. And, of course, some of history's biggest conquerors lived rich fulfilling lives of power and died of old age. Look at people like Genghis Khan or Octavian Augustus etc. Should we not consider them evil simply because they were right about how conquering others and stealing their wealth would benefit them?
  - boxed 3y ago
    > Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught. Some people win the lottery, doesn't mean the lottery pays. > Genghis Khan, Octavian Augustus Yea, we do need to do some more moral analysis to understand how this was negative even for them in the long run. At some point our moral system must take a view beyond the individual, or it will collapse almost instantly. That is a very different discussion though I think :P

boxed 3y ago

1. Shooting someone is evil, if we remove all context. Killing is evil, if we remove all context. But that's the thing, it's all about the context. > They do so because they believe this is a good way for them to get a TV (or the equivalent in money). Well.. maybe. They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay. They might also be desperate, and in that case it's not much of an evil in the first place. That's the entire plot of Les Miserables :P

simiones 3y ago
> They are delusional about the gains it will give them though. A life of crime does not in fact pay. This is far from obvious. Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught. Also, plenty of people who commit less evil acts but from similar motivations (such as assuming credit for a colleague's work to ascend the corporate ladder) are virtually guaranteed to live richer lives than those who don't. Few politicians ever get elected if they don't lie at least some of the time, to any position above mayor maybe. Very few corrupt officials are ever caught, or ever lose their fortunes if caught. And, of course, some of history's biggest conquerors lived rich fulfilling lives of power and died of old age. Look at people like Genghis Khan or Octavian Augustus etc. Should we not consider them evil simply because they were right about how conquering others and stealing their wealth would benefit them?
- boxed 3y ago
  > Plenty of criminals have lived either their entire lives or at least decades in quite remarkable luxury. Plenty of petty thieves and even robbers are never caught. Some people win the lottery, doesn't mean the lottery pays. > Genghis Khan, Octavian Augustus Yea, we do need to do some more moral analysis to understand how this was negative even for them in the long run. At some point our moral system must take a view beyond the individual, or it will collapse almost instantly. That is a very different discussion though I think :P