3 ms·
I would make a stronger claim: ignorance + power + conviction is exactly equal to evil. Mao killed tens of million of his own people because of his misconcepti
by boxed 2y ago
I would make a stronger claim: ignorance + power + conviction is exactly equal to evil.
Mao killed tens of million of his own people because of his misconceptions about farming, economics, and ecology.
Hitler killed millions because of his misconceptions about jews.
9/11 was executed becuase of a small group that were very confused about the basic facts of reality ("god").
There is only delusion + power + conviction. There is no other evil.
- monsieurbanana 2y agoDelusion + power + conviction doesn't always equal evil, so there has to be something missing in that equation. I'd wager it's evil.
- card_zero 2y agoThough this doesn't really answer the question of motivation. Few people aim to do something that they regard to be bad. (It's possible, mind you.)
- throwaway03445 2y agoCalling something "evil" is implying an external force (often linked to religion), that I don't think should be used. It reduces the responsibility of the person doing "evil" acts. I think the missing ingredient is simply not caring about the outcome. It could be because they don't have empathy (sociopaths), or that the society has trained them into normalising obedience to the cause (facsism / communism) or inhumanized their targets (consentration camps). Acts can certainly be described as "evil", but I don't agree that "evil" is some type of force that affects people.
- monsieurbanana 2y agoNot caring about the outcome doesn't make sense, people that are driven by something care about the outcome. To go back to my original point, the simplistic equation falls apart if you spend a second looking for counter examples. Sikhs give free food to any who asks, without expecting anything in return. They are deluded (they do to it please god), and need power and conviction to do so.
- boxed 2y agoA good point. You can for sure accidentally do good things by being deluded and having conviction and power. One could also say that they have a small delusion (god) that gives them a bigger truth (being nice to people is good). So like their total delusion level in this regard is low.
- boxed 2y agoHitler cared about the outcome a lot. That's why he killed so many people. So your analysis has a pretty big flaw there.
- throwaway03445 2y agoI'm not a native speaker, and I see that I may have been unclear. I was thinking of the human consequences. In my language they are almost synonyms. They of course care about the outcome, but not the effect it has on the target group It's strange how one can normalize cruelty. Just think of how prison rapes are joked about in media and movies, as if it is an accepted consequence of committing a crime. It is a cruel and evil act that many choose to simply ignore because it is so common
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- boxed 2y agoGive me a counter example.
- monsieurbanana 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047395
- boxed 2y agoAh, I was thinking of an example where you have evil without those things.
- boxed 2y agoAh, I was thinking of an example where you have evil without those things.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago>There is only delusion + power + conviction. There is no other evil. If you believe this, your beliefs are out of step with essentially every Western justice system, which hold murder to be a worse crime than manslaughter. The difference between them is solely the intention.
- BoiledCabbage 2y agoHow does conviction (as OP used it) not align with intention? I don't follow your point here about murder vs manslaughter and how it contradicts what OP said.
- akoboldfrying 2y agoIt seems I interpreted their use of "conviction" in a very different way than you and others. I interpreted it as a word they chose to use because it contrasts with intention, specifically with intention to harm another person. By "conviction", I understood them to mean a kind of blindness -- an unshakeable belief that what you are doing is right, regardless of what others may believe. That kind of conviction is orthogonal to intention to harm another person. I took the entire thrust of their argument to be that intention to harm another person is neither necessary nor morally important for evil. But that is not how most of the West sees it (as evidenced by the distinction between murder and manslaughter that I pointed out). If, when they wrote "conviction", they in fact meant "intention to harm another person", then I agree with them. But in that case I'm not sure why they posted their comment at all, since that (namely, the thesis that intention to harm is morally important when actions cause harm) is already the accepted norm, at least in the West.
- orwin 2y agoNot that I agree with GP at all, but you are strawmaning him. I'll steelman his argument with your example: Premeditated murder is worse than just murder: for you to commit murder, you have to be convinced you have to do it, and the power to push it through. And in case of a premeditation, the dellusion you'll be able to do it without consequences. (I still think it's a bad example even presented like this, and I disagree with GP, but your example seemed wrong)
- olelele 2y agoI do think 9/11 was more a response to brutal colonial warfare and three letter agency shenanigans going back many years and less about religion..
- guiriduro 2y ago[flagged]
- onetokeoverthe 2y agoNice to know not everyone has koolaid in their veins.
- boxed 2y agoA lot of people think that. Just a tiiiiny problem: the hijackers didn't think that. They were jihadis.
- olelele 2y agoAnd the reason for anti-American jihad?
- boxed 2y ago...in the 1700s. It's older than America. Jihadis want nothing else than 100% global sharia law/kalifate. The hate of America is because America is winning and they are losing. Don't be confused. We do NOT want to placate Jihadis. They are worse than the Nazis.
- cess11 2y agobin Laden and al-Qaida talked a lot about their motivations. For one it was disgusting to them that the house of Saud bowed and scraped for the crusaders in Washington, and so was the rather arbitrary abuse of Afghanistan. They also were under the delusion that the US was a democracy, and hence the general population could be held responsible for the actions of its leaders. Understandable if they had mainly been exposed to US/Occidental state propaganda. Today I don't think anyone would be inclined to hold such a belief.
- onetokeoverthe 2y agoThe People for the New American Century or the off script timezone goof by the BBC? Or maybe the Gelatin art crew?