5 ms·
Actually, if it reduces the living standard and opportunities of the majority of people, that's pretty much the definition of 'evil'. We don't know if that's t
by gress 12y ago
Actually, if it reduces the living standard and opportunities of the majority of people, that's pretty much the definition of 'evil'. We don't know if that's the actual outcome yet, but we should be aware of the possibility and make choices to try to avoid it.
- lstyls 12y agoYour definition of 'evil' totally removes intent. It can be unacceptable, unfortunate, or something else. But 'evil' implies unmitigated badness. This is not a black and white issue. Besides, you're begging the question. The jury is still out on whether or not overall quality of life will in fact decrease. Historical trends strongly suggest otherwise. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everything will be dandy. I just don't know. And you don't either.
- gress 12y agoYour second paragraph makes it seem as though you didn't read my comment. If you had, it seems unlikely that you would have condescendingly said "Let me be clear" before repeating a point I had already made. Otherwise, why did you do that? But I accept that there is some grayness around the idea of intent. I think that that gets resolved with the concept of responsibility. Once the possibility that our actions could be causing harm is raised, we have the responsibility to be aware of this and avoid it if we can, otherwise we are just as culpable as someone who 'intended' harm. Not taking the possibility seriously makes us culpable if harm occurs.