4 ms·

Calling 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 perso

Calling 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  A 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 ago
Hitler 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 ago
  I'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]

monsieurbanana 2y ago

Not 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 ago
A 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 ago

Hitler 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 ago
I'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]