Following on from last Tuesday’s ‘ponderable’, I have another one that has been bouncing around in my head. Yet again, it’s one of those problems that can’t be solved internally because it needs empirical data. Good and evil are such fundamentally nebulous ideas. Depending on who you ask, they can either be defined in absolute terms — or they are totally undefinable. Is ‘Good’ merely an act that helps more than it harms? Is ‘Evil’ the logical inversion of that? Is ‘Good’ strictly defined by cultural and societal norms? Is ‘Evil’ merely breaking the law?
Would you kill one person to save ninety-nine others? Does it matter who that one person is? Gandhi? Hitler?
Would you feel Evil by giving the order to go ahead and kill that one person, to save the ninety-nine? Or Good?
Perhaps it’s better to look at this from the angle of whether you feel justified in your action (or inaction).
Justification is the act of internal rationalisation. And being rational is basically what we we humans do. That’s what we’re inputting, processing and outputting, every minute of every day: rational decisions. Input data, process, rational output.
But here’s the kicker: we can only be as rational as our nurture and nature allows. But within those boundaries and limits, we are rational. 2 + 2 = 4, unless you’ve been told that it’s not. But even if the result is ‘wrong’, we continue to process the data in exactly the same way, because how could we ever exist if we doubted our own calculations? We must assume we’re right. We must assume our actions are rational. How can we possibly know an answer’s wrong anyway? After 30 years of doing it one way, should we listen to someone that says we’re wrong? Or that new-fangled ‘science’ thing — should we trust that? But wouldn’t that mean we’ve been wrong all our lives? That sounds like a bitter pill to swallow. We can perform actions ‘the wrong way’ or jump to the wrong conclusion for an entire life time and not realise!
So with that in mind… I started thinking about psychopaths. Are they rational? The term ‘psychosis’ defines a malady of the mind that causes irrationality. But is the psychotic aware of their irrationality?
As they drown a bag full of kittens and cackle maniacally, do they know they’re being evil? Is it even possible to be aware of their evilness? Could anyone ever be rationally evil? Can you be rationally evil? Is evil only someone else’s point of view? Have you ever felt really evil? I haven’t…
I’m trying to get my head around this one. Did Hitler think he was being mean, nasty or evil when he signed off on the Jewish ghettos and executions? I bet he didn’t. Perhaps it takes a good person to be willfully evil? Hmm…
I know this one is pretty vague. I’m curious if anyone’s ever actually felt evil though — and I don’t mean in a passing, fleeting way, like when you ignore a hitchhiker or put your pet down. Don’t think about it too much though, because chances are you are rationalising and convincing yourself of weird/maligned actions hundreds of times a day. What are you doing that is actually wrong? Ugh! An entry on ethics might be necessary, if I can even hope to do that topic justice.
pinkjellybaby
Sep 15, 2009
I would kill one for 99 others…. but I wouldn’t feel ‘evil’ about it…I’m not doing it for my own gain, I’m not enjoying it. That said, I would feel guilty, shameful, sad and a whole host of other things.
I also think that some psychopaths know what they’re doing. The young boys who killed Jamie Bulger… I would say that they were inherently evil boys. At that age, you know right from wrong, you know not to hurt another human being and they were both free of any mental disabilities or illnesses that would hinder them being able to tell the difference….but for example, someone with schizophrenia…are they always aware of what they’re doing? Is their judgment always intact, perhaps not, and maybe that doesn’t make them evil, it just makes them ill.
Clairebear
Sep 15, 2009
Aha! the argument between structural functionalism and social interactionism. Does evil only exist because we say it does? Or does evil exist and is controlled by us?
So many different ways of looking at it. Something I see as evil, someone else may see as justified. Morals are the same – I see something as morally wrong, but it may not raise an eyebrow on others.
I have never felt evil. Ive done things that were wrong, on my terms, sure. But evil? no.
Are good and evil really opposites? the opposite of good is bad. Bad is not necessarily evil.
Bah, you’ll have me thinking about this for ages now.
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
Ah… yes, I thought as I wrote it that good is opposed to bad, rather than evil. But I wasn’t sure what the inverse of evil is — morally good, morally bad? *shrugs*
Inherently evil… so you think they were born evil, Pink? I don’t think ‘labels’ are necessary to be clinically insane — the names and symptoms of various psychoses are always being pushed around anyway. We don’t know much about the brain (if even the brain is what causes good/bad morality!)
Have a think and come back, Clare! I need to put it out of my mind long enough to write something for tomorrow…
pinkjellybaby
Sep 15, 2009
If they weren’t born evil, where did two 10 year olds learn that it was ‘ok’ to treat another human being like that. I think the thought of such your children learning to be or becoming that evil is a more horrible thought than that they were born that way…
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
Well, I think the accepted view of morality is that it has to be taught. (But I’m not an authority on this one…)
If you dumped your baby out in the woods and made him fight for himself… by the time he was 10, would he have morality? Yes — but it wouldn’t be the same as my morality, or yours. They’d be OK with bludgeoning animals to death for food…
I know it’s shocking, but it’s probably not ‘their fault’ for being ‘evil’… Hmmm.
pinkjellybaby
Sep 15, 2009
Then in that case, shouldn’t the parents be punished too for not teaching their children what is right or wrong…or indeed for subjecting them to such examples of violence?
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
Ah, but do the PARENTS feel bad/evil for what they’ve done…?
Perhaps this morality thing is contagious…
Clairebear
Sep 15, 2009
ok, or there is the argument that they were taught the right way, so its not the parents fault, and that also they didnt think what they were doing was wrong. WE thought it was wrong, horrible, evil….
But thats where the argument begins, isnt it? How on earth could they think it isnt evil? maybe it was a natural instinct for them. They didnt think of it as being wrong – they didnt think of it at all. To them, it was just something they did. Its an extreme example, but you could use it any way you wanted to.
We would say that drug dealers who sell to kids are evil. They could see it as being justified. They need the money, the kids have the choice, no problems. You see it everywhere. “Abortion is evil, youll go to hell.”. But not all of us believe that.
Thats why we can easily point to others and say “evil” but we never truley point to ourselves and say the same. We are working within our own parameters. Good and Evil are relative.
The very fact that you can say the way they were raised made them evil shows how relative it actually is – there is no natural barrier stopping you from doing “evil” things, what you consider evil is what youre taught. That MUST mean that there is no such thing as inherently evil. If we arent born with natural aversion to evil, if its something we must be taught, then it MUST be socially constructed, right?
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
I wonder why there has been religious/spiritual inclination to call people BAD SPIRITS for all of these centuries then.
If we are in fact a ‘blank slate’ at birth, it should in theory be able to make everyone good?
Why not ship every baby off to ‘good camp’ for the first 5 years of their life?
Cal
Sep 15, 2009
Only ~some~ religions make that distinction Seb! And good and evil only exist in a dualist reality. Without that dualism there is only action and consequence and us humans are amazingly bad at being able to predict consequences!
“Would you kill one person to save ninety-nine others?”
No idea. Too abstract. I couldn’t make that decision until I was actually in the situation.
“Would you feel Evil by giving the order to go ahead and kill that one person…”
Leaving aside philosophical problems with ‘evil’ – I wouldn’t do that. If the action had to be taken then I wouldn’t be giving the order for someone else to do the deed. If the decision is mine, the action too must be mine and, for good or ill, so too the consequences.
And ‘good camp’? ‘good’ by who’s definition?
Clairebear
Sep 15, 2009
haha thats true, I was thinking about that too. Trying to work my way through both sides. I know the whole “born as a blank slate” bit is a bit much. What I think is more the point, is that what we DEFINE as evil is dependant upon what we are taught.
Religion/spirituality has its own ‘rules’ on what is evil and what isnt, which would help to define who they called a ‘bad spirit’.
When I say we dont have a natural aversion to evil, I mean in the way that we dont all have the same natural instincts for certain things to be defined as evil.
There is a lot of hypocricy in the definitions too. You will find people who say murder is evil are supportive of the death sentence. But I dont think they would put the same label on the people killing the murderer as they do on the murderer himself.
Mixed in with that social/taught aspect is our own physical way of understanding good and evil – ie mental illness etc.
Im not sure there is any solid, universally agreed upon definition for evil, nor do I think there could be one. Sure, every one could live under the same rules to define it, but would everyone agree with it? I dont think they would.
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
Cal — by ‘good’ camp I mean… just anti-evil. I don’t mean ‘to be part of society you must tie your laces like this, and shower every morning’.
It’s just anecdotal, but are ‘evil’ people mostly those that fall through the cracks of society? Sure, murder often occurs during psychotic breaks — ‘You slept with my wife?!?!’ — but other, premeditated cases — that’s evil, right?
So at Good Camp, if you told people to not batter babies to death, would that be OK? Or would you not send your kids there, claiming that it’s brainwashing/destroying individuality? ‘It’s all a natural urge!’
Cal
Sep 15, 2009
Well if it’s only a question of teaching kids not to batter babies, I think I can probably teach her that myself
Besides, should she ever be in a position where that action is a possibility, then the chances of her recalling a lesson 20-ish years prior to that is really, quite unlikely. You can teach the conscious mind as many rules as you like, but when extreme emotion takes over, those rules go out of the window and we start heading into those areas of behaviour labelled ‘evil’.
Now, if ‘good camp’ was about reconciling subconcious needs + desires, managing emotion and learning how to utilise those aspects of personality usually labelled ‘bad’ I might be interested. But in general, societies idea of ‘good’ seems to be a watered-down christian morality based on ignoring the less palatable parts or labelling them a ‘problem’
What the Church condemned, the State now provides drugs for. Neither, IMO, is an answer.
btw – “Why not ship every baby off to ‘good camp’ for the first 5 years of their life? ” – have you been reading Ignatious?
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
No, I’ve read very little ancient text, or ‘real’ philosophy. I probably should; I just don’t have time. Plus, it’s more fun to have my own ideas than to be pushed and pulled in many different directions — I always enjoy watching students of philosophy at university, as their opinions change on a weekly basis…
Your first paragraph is most telling: yes, you could teach her to not batter babies. Yes, any mother _could_. (In fact, just being taught that battering is generally a bad idea…) — but obviously that element of education/nurture is missing from some childrens’ upbringing?
And of course we recall something we were taught/shown 20 years prior. But yes, perhaps morals have to be kept ‘in practice’ so they do not get rusty…
timoteo
Sep 15, 2009
I like to think it’s based on our relativity to one another. To define what is good and actually give it value, there must be an antithetical relationship. But what someone perceives as “good” can easily be seen by someone else as “evil”. It is a very cultural/generational/socioeconomic issue we’re talking about, one that will always has and always will be changing through the ages.
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
So… if a devoutly Christian person finds himself in a gay relationship, does he think to himself ‘shit, I’m one Evil sod’?
Or does he just think it feels damn good, and it only becomes ‘evil’ once his family finds out?
Are you suggesting that ‘murder’ will be OK at some point in the future, when socioeconomic impulses cause us to commit genocide? Overpopulation maybe?
Hmm…
Cal
Sep 15, 2009
Read up on St Ignatious + the Jesuits Seb. You may then see why the idea of ‘good camp’ meets with a certain amount of resistance
Regarding “any mother could” – maybe I didn’t make my point clear enough. i’m used to discussing things like this with the Mr, where I know he + I have common ground. Anyway – the point was that ‘battering babies is wrong’ is a rules-based idea. One we commonly agree on, but it is a pattern that belongs to the conscious. Battering babies as an ~action~ comes from elsewhere. From depression, from frustration, lack of support, misplaced anger, from an inability to cope with responsibility or the sudden new demands. Myriad reasons, none of which are amenable to being sat down and told “you mustn’t do this – it’s naughty’
Secular society (and as an extension, our views on right and wrong) is very much rules-based. Planned out by the conscious mind. What society doesn’t teach is how to manage conflict – internal and external – between human nature (which is not rules based) and societies edicts.
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
Hm. I’m not talking about psychotic breaks here, or catalytic events between two people — when you throw ‘humanity’ into the equation, things obviously get more complex.
I agree, conflict is something that is usually poorly resolved in today’s society. Bring back jousting.
I’m not trying to impose rules like ‘do not batter babies’. If you start with rules like that, you quickly get into the ‘you must not murder’, and then trying to qualify what ‘murder’ actually entails.
Ah, I don’t know. It’s some kind of esoteric thought that’s bouncing around in my head.
Cal
Sep 15, 2009
So, if you exclude humanity and human nature/behaviour from your definitiuon of evil, then you are left with evil being an independent external force. Which happens, for reasons best known to its (hypothetical) self to manifest only through mankind. In which case, teaching people not to ~be~ evil is futile, they cannot ~be~ something that is external to them. You could teach them how to resist that force, but only once you’ve defined it and identified it. And it can only be defined within a dualistic mindset.
Are you, perhaps, looking for an ulitmate Good and an ulitmate Evil without pestilential religion getting in the way?
sebastian
Sep 15, 2009
No, I’m just wondering how people would act if they only ever acted rationally, with a full body of working knowledge (i.e. pure science, no mysteries, etc.) — if everyone acted with ‘look-ahead’, and not just in the (psychotic) moment.
Need to write for tomorrow now, but will reply to any more later…!
Cal
Sep 15, 2009
To act consistently rationally entails a) no emotions and b) a definition of rational. Rational for whom? the individual? The family unit? Society as a whole? The world. Humanity alone or do we include the environment as well? To exclude it would be irrational as it is all that supports us, but to include it can be irrational as what value to humanity can you put on beauty?
Besides, I believe experiments into every individual working for the good of Society ran for about 50 years or so, falling apart in the early ’90s, They weren’t a spectacular success.
‘rational’ is again rules-based. Human nature is not rules-based and is quite frequently irrational. You would have to iron out all individuality and everything that makes us human. It would be a safe society but largely indistinguishable from a convention of robots.
And what happens when 2 entirely rational but fundamentally opposing societies come into conflict?
Jaime
Sep 15, 2009
There are people who take joy in causing others pain, knowing full well that they’re wrong in what they’re doing, but doing it anyway.
I’m also sure that the most formidably evil person is the misguided person who thinks they have right on their side. Take Hitler for example. He thought he was right. He thought he had right on his side. And look how much damage he did. If he didn’t think he was justified in his actions, do you think he would have convinced so many people to act on his behalf?
What is right and wrong have clear definitions. All human beings have the same rights, and when those rights are infringed upon, the inflicter is wrong. And any rational human being who knows the difference between right and wrong is subject to the consequences of their actions.
Melissa
Sep 15, 2009
Going back to the 10-year-old boy from the woods, I think he could only be called evil if he started killing animals for fun, rather than to eat. After all, if I had no other way to feed myself or my family, I’d definitely hunt and eat any animals I could find!
floreta
Sep 15, 2009
hmmm great ponderings sebbie!
I would say that if there is good and bad, then there is also right or wrong.. or is there?
to me, there is no “right” or “wrong”, but only what works and what doesn’t work. throw in sociopaths and the phrase “to each their own” has a bit more meaning. normally, I would call myself a moral relativist, but if you count sociopaths (who are obviously anamolys), I would definitely NOT say “to each their own” by their measure. because the kinds of things sociopaths do are definitely NOT ok. so i think there’s a sort of universal sense of morality that all humans SHOULD know without having to govern laws. but then, going with “what works or what doesn’t work”.. does that mean a sociopath’s life WORKS for them? it must or they wouldn’t be doing it, right? arg, I don’t know if I make sense or have a point but these are my jarbled thoughts anyway.
Ben
Sep 16, 2009
I may come back to leave a deeply profound comment later, but for now you’ll get an inane one about the half-beard thing you have going on there and how I’m disappointed I don’t have the facial hair prowess not to make one of my own.
Eric
Sep 17, 2009
Your thought about genocide gave me an idea. When you’re confronted with a situation like that, down the line, 20 billion people on Earth and global warming has shrunk the continents, mass starvation, etc., and our morality has “evolved” such that murder is somewhat excusable, you’d say that perhaps bloodletting would be the lesser of two evils, yes? Pull some Soylent Green on them, give them an hour of bliss and make them into crackers, lessen the population, feed the poor, some would argue that’s the better option, but both are bad. I’m rambling, but my idea is this: we’re not realizing the gravity when we are confronted with a “lesser of two evils” situation. Somewhere before we came to that point we made a choice to opt out of the good. We chose evil.
I’ve been thinking about accountability a lot lately.
JPP
Sep 17, 2009
I personally do not believe that I have any true evil within myself. Hurting another person even in self defense seems like the last thing I would be likely to do. I actually don’t believe anyone in the entire world is truely evil. We all have evil tendencies and abilities inside of us. Some people choose to act on those evil feelings and others choose against action. Evil though hurting another is completely against my nature, it someone I care deeply about was in danger by another I would probably act on those evil thoughts. Does that make me truely evil? No, in my opinion in makes me human.
That’s my ramble and I’m sticking to it.
Tall Brunette
Sep 24, 2009
On another note, you’re quite fuckable without all that shit on your face.
I suppose I could only dream about a clean cut to go with that?
And to think we were only minutes apart two weeks ago.
I’m going to go touch myself now.
Brianne
Sep 26, 2009
Just wanted to say:
I dig the 1/2 bearded photos. Clever addition to the post.
sebastian
Sep 26, 2009
Melissa — if the ten year old had no concept of ‘pain’ (or that animals felt pain) — would killing animals for ‘fun’ really be evil? And not just merely… fun? (It’s tough to pin down exactly what ‘evil’ means, eh?
Thank you for that profound comment Ben. I see you never came back to deliver something deep and meaningful into the grubby paws of the masses. Next time maybe!
Eric — there’s a short story, a Vonnegut one (man, he’s awesome) about that particular idea. I forget what it’s called, but if you read the Welcome To The Monkey House collection of short stories, it’s in there. I imagine you’ve probably already read it anyway… but if not, read it!
‘Lesser of two evils’ is perhaps quite a viable way to live a life. Need to think about it some more.
And as for Tall and JPP… wow! Couldn’t get two more-disparate comments if you tried! I have often contemplated taking off all the facial hair, Tall. But I look really young. Imagine, I could cut my hair short too… and I’d look about 18 and mega, mega cute. But I prefer looking older and slightly more wisened!