A definition of "evil"
I know there are a lot of philosophical approaches here to the topic of "evil". Some believe there is an objective qualifiable "evil" in reality, and by proxy an objective morality and "good" too. Perhaps even an objective truth underpinning them.
Others believe true evil doesn't exist at all or is just a construction. More again believe its subjective and depends on context and perspective.
But if you had to describe the most heinous evil one could commit what would it be?
For me the most evil thing I can think of in a broad sense is "a). Taking the object of love/need away from the one(s) who love/need it, b). when the act (of loving/needing) was harmless/benign in itself, and c). While having the intent to cause harm/ expecting suffer as a result by doing so."
If any of the three clauses of the statement a, b and c are not met than the act is not purely evil.
For example if the object of love/need was a threat to/ or actively harming their lover/needer then its removal is justified by minimising harm to the lovers/needers of it.
Or in the case that the object was removed either by accident or with an unsound mind - incapable of connecting with the consequences through empathy (as in the case of not guilty by reason of insanity) or in a crime of instantaneous passion where no time was taken to consider the outcome.
So basically if someone sees a love/need dynamic (between people, between one and their own body - self esteem, between someone and their precious possessions - food water, medicines etc) and plans/pre-meditatively destroys that relationship on purpose just so that the person suffers - this is the most unjustifiable and purely malign act whether it's murder, theft, rape or verbal abuse/bullying etc.
Others believe true evil doesn't exist at all or is just a construction. More again believe its subjective and depends on context and perspective.
But if you had to describe the most heinous evil one could commit what would it be?
For me the most evil thing I can think of in a broad sense is "a). Taking the object of love/need away from the one(s) who love/need it, b). when the act (of loving/needing) was harmless/benign in itself, and c). While having the intent to cause harm/ expecting suffer as a result by doing so."
If any of the three clauses of the statement a, b and c are not met than the act is not purely evil.
For example if the object of love/need was a threat to/ or actively harming their lover/needer then its removal is justified by minimising harm to the lovers/needers of it.
Or in the case that the object was removed either by accident or with an unsound mind - incapable of connecting with the consequences through empathy (as in the case of not guilty by reason of insanity) or in a crime of instantaneous passion where no time was taken to consider the outcome.
So basically if someone sees a love/need dynamic (between people, between one and their own body - self esteem, between someone and their precious possessions - food water, medicines etc) and plans/pre-meditatively destroys that relationship on purpose just so that the person suffers - this is the most unjustifiable and purely malign act whether it's murder, theft, rape or verbal abuse/bullying etc.
Comments (89)
I think the most heinous evil is to truly believe that YOU are the most important object in the universe and to act 100% in accordance with that belief. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil humans who has ever lived and I think his narcissism was at a 100% level or as close to it as a single human can get.
I agree. I think the idea of evil is generally not a useful one. It often leads to responses that are not effective in addressing the behavior in question. E.g. revenge rather than prevention and deterrence. "Evildoers" are human. If you want to stop them, you have to understand that.
That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child.
'To deliberately inflict and prolong, willfully ignore or derive pleasure from suffering' is my quick & dirty idea of evil.
Follow up question for you; having defined it now what would you think motivates such people to commit those kinds of perverse pleasures? As in do you think it's nature or nurture? Do you think people who do such things are redeemable? Do you think those that pursue evil things are simply mis-directed or do you think there's nothing one can do to salvage some civility in them?
Interesting indeed. But what say you of a person who believes they are the only thing that exists (solipsists) - one who believes their "self" is unanimous with the "whole" but perhaps have a perogative to act in servitude of the self. In that case a crime against another is a crime against the self. They hold accountable their actions against another as if it was against their self and therefore are benevolent towards all people.
It is sort of positive narcissism. I wouldnt hurt myself therefore I cannot hurt another as it is equivalent.
Is this because childhood is commonly viewed as a state of innocence and therefore unaccountability? If you cannot be held responsible for your actions you cannot have done wrong or right?
And if so at what age do you believe one is suddenly responsible for their actions/ no longer innocent? Is this age the same for every person? Is it defined or arbitrary based on intelligence, self awareness, experience or a specific age?
Sadism is a perverse evil, that cause pain and permanent damage to gratify a psychic or sexual need.
Narcissism is evil, because the narcissist acts with only their benefit in mind.
Sadistic narcissists are the most objectively evil humans we've got *cough* Trump *cough*.
Not exactly. For me, at the heart of all moral questions is the need to protect the vulnerable. Beyond that, I think the purpose of human society is to raise and protect children. Why else go to all this trouble?
I don't know. Besides, I think that's a psychiatric problem and not a philosophical question.
No. They are more lethal pathogens than bad people. I've never heard of remorseful animal torturers, child / elder rapists, serial killers, or mass murderers, have you?
In every culture "the devil" is portaryed as a being of utmost "civility". Folk instincts in this regard are instructive. All that glitters is not gold ..., etc. Such inhuman folk, it seems to me, forfeit the right of inclusion in any human community. Put out both of their eyes and permanently exile them to the remotest place on Earth under constant electroonic / satellite suveillance with RFID tags like wild animals with prefab shelters and enough training (while medicated) and tools to manage subsistence living either they blindly work togrther to survive or they don't.
This is a crucial point for me, there are no supernatural scapegoats available, there never has been and there never will be. Humans must own evil and only by fully understanding why humans do what they do, can we successfully combat evil, in all the ways humans demonstrate it.
I think if you are a solipsist who declares solipsism as an objective truth, then you have declared yourself as the most important object in the universe, based on your delusion, that only you truly exist, which would fit with my definition of an extremity of evil.
I personally think solipsism is nonsense but your connection between solipsism and the golden rule is a nice but unlikely connection.
A solipsist who is benevolent towards everything because they believe everything is of them and they therefore treat everything as they themselves would want to be treated, is an angle on solipsism I have not heard of before and I find it too much of a stretch for me. I would consider a solipsist to be narcissistic by default, unless they only put solipsism forward, merely as a small possibility.
Based on your agreement with @180 Proof, do you consider masochistic humans as behaving in an evil way?
Quoting 180 Proof
Why do you use 'dirty' here? Are you referencing masochism? and if so, do you see masochism as an evil behaviour in all cases?
Not common to me. Do you think masochism is an act of evil?
Can a human therefore not perform an evil act on themselves?
If a human stands by whilst an innocent child is murdered, (to use the example offered by @T Clark)
could such be offered as an evil act you have performed against your own self?
No. The evil act is done to the child, whether or not she is his child. Same as above.
You and I agree that evil, to the extent it exists at all, is human. Maybe that's the difference between us - I don't believe there is such a thing. Evil is just something we call the worst human behavior. I've never seen it as a religious thing.
:snicker:
With g/G, scripture says "evil is sin against g/G". However, with or without g/G, evil is also sin against all descendants. :mask:
You have good taste in music mon ami! I wish I'd made time for all these other aspects of life - music, literature, etc. - that make bios worth living.
mon ami!
There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.
Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit.
Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.
This.
We are fragile, and so we are fearful. And of those whose fragility is exploited and abused, there are some who are destroyed psychologically. One can see it sometimes in the eyes, a deadness, and other times it is covered by the brightest of smiles.
Those whose own fragility has become intolerable, seal themselves off from the world and present themselves as strong. Their strength is to project their own weakness onto the world and punish the world for it. This is hell, because it can never end, and there is no one left to save. Pity the pitiless!
Ive heard this too.. The devil being the most masterful/artful liar and appearing like an angel. It worries me that such a level of deceit could exist in the world. How would one ever prove who they are?
I agree and therefore I think that the label self-victimisation is inappropriate. BUT, the label 'responsibility,' is appropriate or perhaps 'shared responsibility.' 15000 children die every day for preventable reasons. Do you consider this daily occurrence to be evil? Do you think that all humans who know about it have a shared responsibility to stop this? Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
Two good points. So, 15000 child deaths per day, from preventable events cannot be allowed to continue. We all share the responsibility for this imo.
I think the label 'evil' is ok to use as a convenient descriptor for certain judged human behaviours. I see it similar to other labels such as 'time.' Time may well have no reality outside of a convenient way to measure the 'duration of events'. I agree with you that evil has no relevance outside of the human experience or perhaps more accurately, outside of the experience of all creatures capable of emotional feelings. If you remove 'evil' from religion and you don't see evil as a religious thing, then what do you leave the Christians (for example) as their main tool of judgement. Why do you jump so quickly to their defence, if you think one of their most important tools is being used by them, falsely? Is it because you, in truth, fully accept my first sentence above?
Yes I agree. If you truly see eachother as being valued, if you really think other people deserve the same protection and care that you receive/ or ought to receive from others then there's no other option than their pain and suffering being your pain and suffering, it's empathy, otherwise you only fool yourself while they starve to death through no fault of their own.
If 15000 children's deaths can be prevented. And we see all children on the planet as deserving protection. Then it's imperative to try and do so. Otherwise we are just spectators observing bad and good things being done but not actively contributing to it ourselves or worse... Being manipulated by bad people and liars to do their bidding for them unbeknownst to ourselves.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it is a philosophical question. If psychiatry and philosophy are both referencing the quality of thought, behaviours and beliefs of the mind... I don't see how there isn't massive Overlap. I think philosophy (thinking and questioning) can and should be applied to all disciplines - for the sake of ethics at least.
The more I read quotes that people use from this St, Augustine character from history, the more I dislike him, as I do when I read words attributed to most historical characters given the title saint. A title I find personally, particularly ridiculous. What do you think people really do love here. I understand that a person may be 'mentally ill,' have 'bad wiring' etc and therefore get all 'jack the ripper' or 'ted bundy' on people and feel no regret or compassion afterwards but that's because of their psychiatric problems.
A child who steals candy from another child, and sits and eats it whilst the first child is in tears? Is that evil? or is that just behaviour we learned in the wilds?
A program I watched recently showed an example of a time of lack of resources amongst a group of monkeys. A male monkey decides to attack one of the children of another. He kills it and starts to consume it. Other monkeys in the troop join in on consuming the infant monkey. The mother of the monkey screams her protests at the group. One of the female monkeys stops eating the infant for a moment to embrace the screaming mother in what can only be described as an attempt to console her.
As a human, I cannot label this scene as anything other than pure evil but I also feel the need, not to do so and see this event as what can happen if you continue to live under jungle rules.
I think the same applies to 'romanticising' statements (I am not suggesting you are doing so, but some people do) such as the one above from Augustine. If you love your own perdition and your own faults, then your thinking is rather flawed imo. I think you need to accept responsibility for such but to LOVE such is folly.
I think this is fundamentally correct but ignorance is not the only reason and ignorance is sometimes not an excuse if you could have easily become aware by just making a little effort.
Mental illness is also not evil imo.
Very good words which are bitterly true.
Quoting unenlightened
I think this can end if we can make people less fragile and less afraid.
:clap: Your words are honest and true imo.
Quoting 180 Proof
If we don't do all we can, when we can, to stop 15000 innocent, preventable deaths, then we have to live with the statistic. This is what I mean by 'evil that humans can perform on themselves.'
This is happening EVERY DAY and the weight of such evils are intolerably pressing on the conscience of most people, as most people imo, are good.
I personally don't do enough imo. I have been involved with such as 'sponsor a child' since it began many years ago but that's just throwing some money at the issue. I do some other stuff as well but not enough. I think some people can become anti-life/anti-natalist because their conscience cannot deal with some of these horrific, true statistics. We must all do better or else literary words such as:
those that are poor or ill are surplus to the needs of society and if they would rather die, theyd better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
will forever gnaw at all good people and increase the number of antinatalists among us.
Why would it be my job to determine what Christians' "main tool of judgement" is. Why would I care.
Quoting universeness
Unlike many here on the forum, I respect people's religious beliefs. It doesn't have anything to do with their specific beliefs. I don't think the idea of "evil" is false as such, just not useful. It's not a word I use very often.
We need to look Beyond Good And Evil (Nietzsche)? :chin: I wonder ...
I haven't read what Nietzsche wrote.
Perhaps not your 'job' but you seem to feel protective towards Christians, perhaps because, according to your earlier typings, you married one. I intend no offence by this, I am merely suggesting a reason which drives your demand for 'respecting people's beliefs.' I respect people, not their beliefs, especially when they try to preach them to me, not as merely their belief but as truth revealed by a supernatural deity than I must accept or be damned by.
Quoting T Clark
Fair enough. But you have stated that it's origin and source is human and not supernatural. I am merely trying to follow your logic as you apply it every day, and I am interested in what actions you follow based on a conditional such as. If I don't accept that 'evil' has a supernatural source (as you seem not to) then what is your response to a Christian theist who states with personal certainty, (the kind of personal certainty you object to me displaying) that the devil is the source of evil and you are one of the damned if you don't accept the Abrahamic god as your saviour.
A fully cooked Christian will consider you one of the damned, will they not?
What about repeatedly jabbing a nice old lady in the ear with a pencil? Slapping a child seems like child's play compared to that.
I can arrive at some additional counter examples to your comment if you'd like.
I'd rather you focused on my arguments rather than my motives.
Quoting universeness
I generally don't feel any need to respond.
Please don't go to any trouble for my sake.
Quoting Jamal
:grin:
Book titles, I hear, are crafted to grab your attention; as they say, don't judge a book by its cover, oui mes amies?
Votre essayer a Francais parler sont tres annoying. Je voudrais si vous les arrete.
Pardon my very bad French.
There is no way to compel you to respond to that which you do not want to respond to.
Suffice to say however that this suggests you have 'boxes,' you will not open and fully examine.
Perhaps I have some to, I don't know for sure, but If I do, I am not sure where they are in my head.
I WANT TO open all the boxes and look inside. I have always preferred that the solution to Schrodinger's cat, at any instant of time, is to open the freaking box and describe what you see. I think we need to always open all the boxes. I don't mean we should just ignore the warnings about opening pandoras box, I just mean that the contents of pandoras box were never avoidable in the first place, so we must learn to combat them better. Pandoras box/jar was never ever closed!
[b]What evils did Pandora release?
The Evils of the World! Curiosity got the better of Pandora and she lifted the lid of the storage jar which released all the evils of the world. These terrible things included disease, war, vice, toil, and the necessity to work for sustenance.[/b]
Addition: Pandora is just Eve, an apple or the contents of a jar/box, not much difference in the imagery. Pandora is just another BS fable where Women get the blame for releasing all the evils in the world, yet again. We need to stop any such story being peddled as potentially based on true events or else the word EVIL will retain its fake supernatural power over humans based on their primal fears.
Btw, @Jamal, does it mean anything to you that Levi is an anagram of evil. I hope not, but I bet some nefarious people have used such meaningless observations to abuse the Jewish people and Jewish culture.
Schrodinger intended his cat analogy as a joke.
If he did then perhaps his science was much more successful than his comedy.
:lol: A million times better than my smattering of French.
And so rape would be good if humans so defined it as good? This sounds like subjectivism and subject to the many problems associated with it.
Quoting universeness
Except to the extent they might have an enlightend sense of selfishness, where they feed their narcissistic ego through apparent acts of kindness. That is to say, your focus on the psychological motivation seems less significant than focusing on the intent generally as well as the behavior.
For example, if Hitler's motivation was truly that he thought Aryan supremecy would result in a greater good for the world, he still would have been evil, even though his motivation would include advancement of his community generally, would not be narcissistic under this description, and would be just as evil.
Quoting T Clark
This is a Christian notion of evil within humanity, which relies upon an ever present love of one's enemy, turning the other cheek and viewing all as capable of salvation.
I know you didn't suggest all that with your simple comment above, but it is part of that tradition.
The counter tradition is that there is true evil for which no sympathy should be afforded.
The latter may be thought of as unnuanced, judgmental, and merciless The former naive and refusing to call a spade a spade. That is, to the extent we must understand our enemy, let us understand they are evil. It could be that simple. Quoting hypericin
I include as evil self harm, not just that harm to others, including subjecting yourself to degradation or humiliation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not create a subjective morality where it becomes acceptable for the masochist to injure others because he would enjoy receiving such pain.
If you see all of humanity, including yourself, as the ultimate end, the highest being within our world, imposing a metaphorical divine essence upon it, it becomes as evil to damage others as yourself, resulting in a duty to develop yourself to your highest potential
You're the second person today I've had to ask to respond to my argument, not to my motivation. You and Universeness are peas in a pod.
Quoting Hanover
And yet it's not.
I made no mention of your motivation. I indicated your position's similarity to Christianity and then pointed out the well known difficulties with that position, namely its inability to adequately condemn unresolvable evil.
How you arrived at your position isn't a concern of mine.
As with most (all?) philosophical positions one may advance here, they have been advanced and criticized elsewhere probably for the past 1000 years. I've done nothing but identify your position and respond in what was actually a predictable way.
I thought about that when I was writing my response, but I wanted a way to show you and Universeness are similar. I figured that would annoy you.
What I should have responded was "I remain skeptical of your sincerity."
I can't conceive of a human civilisation that would define rape as good and still be able to retain the label civilised. I would engage in armed revolt against such a civilisation, wouldn't you? The bizarre projection you are attempting is sensationalist and is based on a quick jump to extremity approach. Such a jump is a bit irrational. Democracy is based on subjectivism, which is fine as long as you have an educated populous, which is the socialist/humanist goal.
Quoting Hanover
You simply exemplify that benevolence must be demonstrated not claimed or promised, based on never never claims of future equality. The terms enlightened and selfishness are combatants, they never belong together. Hitler demonstrated evil towards the majority, and benevolence, only towards his chosen few. I find little of significance or value in your rather obtuse angle of logical argument here.
You don't annoy me. I ignore those who annoy me.
I'm sincere in my posts. Even the absurd ones are not insincere.
I only ignore those who I think are completely cooked and there is no wiggle room.
So far, I have mostly only included certain fully cooked antinatalists in that category.
Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention, meaning there was a time in our not so distant past that women were considered men's property. The same holds true for certain races. Caste systems allow subjugation as do religious systems to this day.
You are attempting to defend your subjectivist position by arguing that your moral positions are subjective but that they are universal, meaning that they so happen to be moral because of a universal consistency in human preference and thought.
The problem with your position is that it is an empirical statement and it is wrong. From nation to nation, culture to culture, time period to time period, there are fundamental distinctions in what is considered right and wrong, including the issue of rape.
What we need to say is rape is wrong, regardless of where it happens, when it happens, or which dictator says it is. That is moral realism and it demands objectivity.
Democracy can legalize slavery. It cannot make it moral. That is the point. Quoting universeness
The Jews were a minority. In any event, why are we counting numbers here? Are you suggesting if we scapegoated a sufficiently few for the common good, then the scapegoating was moral?
This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago.
You and I have no idea who first suggested that we are equal and thrive better when we work together rather than in conflict. Perhaps many members of many early hominid species regularly suggested that they should work together, as equals. I agree that hierarchy does seem to dominate within most animal and insectoid groups and there is plenty of evidence of it in humans, but humans rose to the top perhaps because many of us decided to work together as equals and have always rejected the idea that hierarchy is the only way and the best way. Socialism/humanism rejects the notion of a ruling hierarchy and would only every employ it, if it is demonstrably, (and is constantly so,) in service to the majority. Of, for and by the people.
Quoting Hanover
They are my subjectivist position, yes, and are opinions held by many others, subjectively.
I democratically debate for them to be accepted by you and as many others as possible so that they do become universally applied. I am defending and I am trying to convince others to become believers, yes.
I know that when people have trusted others to hold authority, they have suffered for it BUT I believe that we can get it right. That which sounds good can become universal quite quickly.
If true socialism/humanism cannot demonstrate its tenets are the best and fairest system humans have ever lived under then it must fail and be thrown on the scrap heap with all the other failed attempts in history. We will then try again under other labels. BUT, the point is that as long as humans exist, many will try to make things better for all. For me, that is what it means TO BE human.
Quoting Hanover
My political and socioeconomic position requires consistent empirical demonstration, yes. Open, honest government must have this ability. Any culture, or time period or different moral arguments regarding right and wrong do not in my opinion include issues such as rape or the ability to take the basic needs of survival for granted. Mutual consent to sex and economic/resource-based parity are fundamental in demonstrating the difference between humans and animals. Such parity is essential if we are to show that we no longer play by jungle rules. I don't care about culturally driven traditions which differ from these fundamentals. Nothing good can be built unless and until these fundamentals are accepted by a global majority. From what you say in your quote above, we fully agree. That which builds from subjective democratic debate/opinion can indeed become Universally accepted and objectively applied.
But the hard work has to be done first. Universal application of a fair, benevolent, just, system based on equal human rights is what I advocate for.
Quoting Hanover
No democratic system can legalise slavery unless the people involved are stupid morons and I do not consider a group of stupid and moronic humans, capable of creating a good civilisation. SO, the imperative is to make sure that the planet Earth is not populated by a majority of humans who are stupid and moronic. I don't therefore think the point you make above has any importance other than as a statement of the obvious.
Quoting Hanover
I don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form, except to cite it as a common use that theists use gods for. I do state that the nefarious behaviour of a small number of humans throughout history have resulted in the bad social, political, economic and environmental systems we now globally employ.
The colour, creed or culture of the nefarious is completely irrelevant to me. I do not scapegoat the nefarious rich and powerful, I justly and directly accuse them, in the same way as the French did during their revolution. A pity, morons such as Robespierre messed it all up again!
All I've got is this old bit of scripture:
[quote=Matthew 7:16]Ye shall know them by their fruits.[/quote]
Slavery existed in the US only 150 years ago, it still exists in parts of the world today, and woman are considered chattel in parts of the world today. I'm not referencing unknown, ancient civilizations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
Quoting universeness
The American South did not create slavery because they were stupid.
In any event, you miss the point terribly. The point was that the role of the majority is irrelevant in determining morality. Quoting universeness
Again, you miss the point terribly. You argued that Hitler was an example of a minority will over-ruling majority will, resulting in an evil that wouldn't have existed had he more concerned himself with Germany's will and not his own. My response was twofold: (1) you're factually incorrect to assert that Hitler was subjugating the majority because the subjugated (Jews among many others) were a minority, not a majority, and (2) a democracy can be tyrannical. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#:~:text=The%20tyranny%20of%20the%20majority,those%20of%20the%20minority%20factions.
That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US.
Yep. And that's the scary part.
Much obliged for the short & sweet explanation mon ami.
I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers?
I agree. I think it's reasonable to know a good person by their deeds and not just what they say. Actions speaker louder than words. Hypocrites use words to signal virtue they don't actually themselves embrace pretending to be something they're not. Good people say and do in harmony. They practice what they preach.
Its a simple thing but an important one.
Quoting Hanover
You misdirect from my point. My quote above was in response to this quote below from you. So it was a response to your inaccurate words about when egalitarianism began, and had nothing to do with the issue of human slavery.
Quoting Hanover
The fact that slavery and misogyny still exist in our world today, should simply enhance your determination to help eradicate both, whenever and wherever it is identified. Do you agree?
Quoting Hanover
Of course they were stupid! They caused a bloody civil war due to their stupid economic model and their pursuit of profit and power for a racist, sycophantic few who leached off of the backs and sweat of enslaved people who they considered inferiors. That's why the South was utterly defeated. It was really stupid and moronic to bring such devastation onto themselves instead of getting rid of slavery themselves and sharing the resources of the South with all 'Americans.' Of course, the first issue for Americans is their genocide of the native tribes.
Quoting Hanover
No Its not, that's just naive. Morality is a human invention (or at least an invention of sentience). I think that the majority of humans NOW accept that rape is morally wrong. That morality is created BASED ON that OPINION of the majority. It then has the force needed to become an objective truth BUT only an objective truth within human civilisation. The role of the majority is essential in determining HUMAN morality.
Quoting Hanover
No, I suggested that Hitler was a result of being able to fool some of the people all of the time but he over-stretched (as most tyrants do) and Germany was utterly smashed because the people of Germany were duped into following him. The majority of the people on the planet at the time were not duped by Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito etc so they lost the inevitable world war. Whenever evil grows too big for its boots, it gets smashed. That's why Gandhi pointed out that tyrants and empires of evil, always eventually fall, every time, every example, has indeed eventually fallen.
Quoting Hanover
Hitler called the Aryan race the superior, chosen race. Anyone who was not Aryan was inferior and surplus to requirements so what are you typing about? If you add the Jews, to the gypsies, the slavs, the catholics, etc, etc all the non-aryans then you have a vast majority! yes?
By definition, a democracy cannot be tyrannical unless the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only those people are involved in voting in the 'democracy' you describe.
The 'democracy'' you describe reminds me of the 'democracy' as defined and favoured by creatures such as Trump and Putin.
But that is simply an abuse of the word.
All past tyrannies were run by a nefarious few, who had their power and position 'rubber stamped,' by a duped, terrified populous.
Such is no different from the Russians claiming they have a democratic mandate to annex regions of the Ukraine. The numbers involved DO matter. If the part of the Russian diaspora living in Glasgow all voted to become part of Russia. Could Putin make a valid claim on Glasgow?
:clap: Anyone given authority MUST accept all scrutiny of WHAT THEY DO! No matter what labels/badges they wear on their jacket including socialist/humanist/honest/decent/good/trustworthy person.
What they say, no matter what bells, whistles, promises, vows and special effects they employ should be taken with no more than a pinch of trust. Totalitarianism, autocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, cults of celebrity or religion gaining significant power and influence etc must become as impossible as we can make it by installing very powerful, permanent checks and balances.
Any person or group must be relatively easy to kick out of power at any time the majority they represent want them gone.
Your generalisation here is your claim that 'the will of the majority involved,' was in fact obtained and acted upon. I maintain that this is a bad assumption, and it is in fact more likely that these horrors were performed based on the wealth, influence and power base of a very small group of dynastic families/leaders.
The mostly uneducated, religiously duped populous involved, merely followed like sheep or were simply never consulted.
It was certainly immoral and wrong, but trying to preserve an economic system that resulted in great wealth doesn't point to a lack of intelligence. While it would be delightful to join in your world view that justice always prevails and it was for that reason the South lost, I think more mundane causes can be given for their loss. Specifically, the South was agrarian, lacked resources, had a smaller population, and experienced little to no immigration. They were also outmaneuvered politically so that larger numbers of states remained loyal to the union than the confederacy.
The point being that slavery had existed hundreds of years in America at the time of the Civil War, and it wasn't that it just finally exploded from being unjust. I wish that were the case. It would mean that we need only sit back and wait for those unjust nations in existence today to finally become enlightened. Quoting universeness
And such is subjectivism. It means rape was moral when the population said it was. If morality is an opinion, then it is fluid. Should rape fall into favor, it will be moral, as you are relying upon the majority to tell you good from bad.Quoting universeness
Again, whether you intend for this or not, you are arguing a theistic view, where nations rise and fall on the basis of their aligning themselves with good or evil. It ignores entirely the ebb and flow of good and evil within nations, ignoring the fact that a seemingly good Germany became evil, focusing only on the fact that an evil Germany fell. Why can't we argue that when a nation becomes too good it too gets too big for its britches and then it must become evil? We can tell the tale of how good fell to evil as much as evil fell to good.
If you want to understand the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, there are plenty of good historical treatises that can explain the social changes, political changes, and the details of each battles fought. The point being, the answer to such historical questions lies within the historical events, not just some statement that we win when God is on our side and we lose when he's not. Quoting universeness
I don't know if the oppressed outnumbered the oppressors or not, but it's screamingly irrelevant. Had there been one more Nazi than the sum total of the oppressed, then the Nazis would still have been wrong. Had there been a single man mistreated, scapegoated for the crimes of others, with only a single person objecting on his behalf, that person would have been right and the rest wrong.
Quoting universeness
Maybe read some de Tocqueville:
https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority
Take some time to work through your position. It's just not making sense. You are arguing that it is logically impossible for the empirical reality of a tyrannical democracy to exist. That is, you are suggesting it is impossible that the majority of people would vote to oppress a smaller number of people, as if to suggest all laws, as long as there is a 51% consensus must be just by definition. This
argument is defeated by actual history.
I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.
I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant.
Yes it does. Intelligent people see 'the big picture,' they think about more than themselves and their family, they also consider the wider community, their nation and the planet they live on. Their economic system only benefited the few and an immoral and wrong few as you yourself describe such attitudes.
How can intelligent people consider other people inferior due to the colour of their skin or their tradition or their culture or the fact that they are less technically advanced than you. That's not a demonstration of intellect, that's a demonstration that you cannot think beyond your 'law of the jungle,' beginnings. If you see native peoples in the way the Southern Confederacy saw their slaves, then they should have gone back to the jungle they came from and continued to behave as the animals behaved.
The pursuit of personal great wealth is imbalanced and evil imo.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, their economic slave system made them technically stagnant and mainly backwards.
Another major difference was that the South had no navy to speak of, so the union blockades of Southern ports were eventually very decisive.
Quoting Hanover
That is exactly what is happening but not because of those who are sitting back but because of those who are actively changing things for the better.
Quoting Hanover
No, because no SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CIVILISATION has ever in history said rape was moral. Which civilisation declared all rape as moral? What evidence do you have? Are you talking about some rule of kings or nobles that was only their exclusive right? or a rule of conquest such as 'to the victor, the spoils?' These have always been 'jungle rules,' perpetrated on others as acts of violence or power, they have never been set as a moral law which any significant human civilisation has used as a fundamental base for their society. You are sensationalising and trying to suggest that such extreme behaviours could become the accepted norm.
Quoting Hanover
Where did I mention gods or supernatural BS? People make nations, people can treat others as they would want themselves treated or they can act like the animals in the jungles we came from. There is no theistic garbage in the points I am making, there are only my viewpoints on human interrelationships and the fact that I am convinced we can build a far better human civilisation than we have now. Clan sized groups of humans to nation sized groups of humans is not what we should focus on. We need to focus on how we can all work together so that we push forward to a day when the human race can finally shed all of the bad habits that still hold us back. All the bad habits and bad behaviours we experienced from our days in the wilds during our Darwinian evolution.
Quoting Hanover
Your point here again merely states the obvious and the much more important point is that the human race continues to progress and is in its totality, more moral and does in its totality behave better towards each other in general, in comparison with our ancestors.
Quoting Hanover
I don't always look for backup or counter opinions from long dead philosophers, I prefer to listen to those alive now. Without, of course, ignoring the mistakes of the past often highlighted by such as the person you refer to.
Quoting Hanover
All I can say is 'right back at you!' So, give a real example from history that supports your claim.
Was there a referendum of the British people taken before the thugs in their royalty or military decided to go to war with the French, for example? Were all the people in Clan Campbell above the age of 16, male and female, democratically consulted before their clan chief and his top thugs/gangsters decided to fight those from Clan Macdonald?
Was there a referendum before America joined WW 2. Was that what took them so long? :halo: (No offense intended).
You're describing an ideal morality, not "intelligence." You can be an evil genius. Quoting universeness
Because they are immoral.Quoting universeness
Why are you now offering additional reasons for the South's loss of the war when you previously argued it was due their having adopted an evil system?
Quoting universeness
See: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=nlj, particularly page 7 and footnote 20. Rape of black women was legal during times of slavery.
Marital rape was legal in every state in the US until 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
What the Bible says about rape: https://www.openbible.info/topics/rape
See also the English law of Coverture, where a woman had no legal rights of her own, but was the legal property of her husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CovertureQuoting universeness
You didn't. You presented a justice prevails because it is just argument which is essentially the same thing. It argues that as long as we fight for righteousness we will prevail.Quoting universeness
If my point is obvious, then why do you argue otherwise? I have submitted that the majority will is irrelevant when deciphering morality. Quoting universeness
Super. Quoting universeness
How does this contradict the idea that a democracy can be tyrannical?
No, I just have a higher opinion of the potential of the average human being than you do. I am not someone who assigns too much importance to ancient concepts such as platonic forms or Aristotelian ideals. I do accept that humans can always improve the systems they live by but there is no such 'final destination,' as an ideal morality. It's like trying to reach an ideal accuracy for pi or the speed of light in a vacuum. 3.14159265 will provide better solutions to certain problems compared to 3 or 3.1 or 3.14 and it will be ever so. An evil genius is just a measure of evil, nothing more. Genius is impressive but it is also relative and fallible.
Quoting Hanover
Ok, I am fine if you prefer to go with your 'immoral,' label rather than my stupid, moronic and evil labels.
The response will hopefully be the same, we will both continue to be compelled to oppose and combat such attitudes.
Quoting Hanover
The reason the Southern confederacy lost their war was myriad and the fact they had adopted an evil system was one of the main reasons the war started and was one of the main reasons they lost.
You should read the memoirs of Ulyssess S. Grant. I just finished it a few weeks ago.
Quoting Hanover
I never claimed unjust laws have never existed. You misunderstand and misrepresent the spirit of the word democracy imo. The word is about consent and rape does not involve consent and therefore there is no such concept as democratic rape. You yourself gave the argument that exemplified a situation such as a single non-nazi standing amongst a hundred or a thousand nazi's. You typed that that single non-nazi would be the one who was still morally correct, in your subjective, democratic opinion. I agree and I further project this onto the claim that there cannot be such an entity as a tyrannical democracy as the two words contradict each other. Your counter argument is that a group can democratically vote yes to the rape, pillage and conquering of another group and you are trying to sensationalise this by labelling it a 'democratic tyranny.' By trying to do this you 'soil' the word democracy unfairly and unjustly. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE WOMAN during rape so such an act CAN NEVER BE DEMOCRATIC! The same applies to the other examples of skewed and atrocious authority tolerance towards continued jungle like behaviour from historical or current groups of men, you cited.
The vast majority of biblical edicts/guidelines are just embarrassing or else we should be still burning witches. Any group that still advocates or actually performs such acts would be considered evil, yes?
Quoting Hanover
You are making some bizarre interpretive jumps. I type something like 'when evil gets too big for its boots it gets smashed,' and you jump to some 'righteous religion on a crusade against evil,' BS.
My typings are about how humans react to evil empires such as the Greeks/Macedonians under Alexander the [s]great[/s] savage, Rome, France under Napoleon, [s]Great[/s] savage Britain, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin etc, etc. THEY FALL, exactly as Gandhi stated.
Yes, as long as we fight for a global society where all humans can take their basic needs for granted and have equal status under the law, we will prevail, without any reference to, or need for, appeals for support or sanction from non-existent supernaturals.
Quoting Hanover
Because it's not true! The majority will is not, in any way, irrelevant, it is very relevant to identify, support and embed morality. 'Rape is immoral,' is correct, objectively as you suggest, even in the case of 1 victim (in one of your favoured unlikely scenarios) in a city of men who have all democratically voted for rape to be legal within their city state limits. It is all the other people from outside that city state who will smash it up, physically or politically and change that law! Even if it takes 10,000 years to achieve it. THATS WHAT HUMANS DO. That is their legacy and their compelling potential.
Quoting Hanover
I think I have been crystal clear on my opinion that the concept of tyrannical democracy is contradictory and makes no sense within REAL human civilisations that have and do exist. You can peddle the idea of democracy running within gangster style authorities which may operate or exist within human civilisations, but you are just misusing the word democracy, when you try to apply it to gangster groups of moronic humans who cannot exist beyond their jungle beginnings.
Indeed it can be! :cool:
I'm sorry to get a bit panto on you but 'OH NO IT CAN'T!' or to respond more in kind, 'OH INDEED IT CANNOT.'
Gangsters can all agree democratically to act as gangsters act but if they are being tyrannical to others then they have no consent from those they are being tyrannical towards, so they are not acting DEMOCRATICALLY! You cannot employ democracy within your own group and then abandon it when dealing with another group who is not threatening you! Such behaviour IS CONTRADICTORY.
Why not? You might convince me I am wrong, but you need to be in it to win it!
I have reorganized something in my brain; you're feelin' the effects.
What? You need to be less cryptic.
:lol:
Quoting Agent Smith
Telepathy?
I think if two individuals (self and other) are equivalent, and owed the same rights and protections then it is not more sinister to harm another than yourself. That denies you equal treatment and what sort of message does that send to others as to how you should be treated.
The third option of course is to treat others well and hope/expect them to treat you similarly. In that ways both parties are moral. And the threat of harm is only potential and not acted out/committed.
But you are right about if we hold humanity in high self esteem then we ought to consider why we lack self respect. It is not morally irrelevant. If choice exists.. Which I believe it does.. Then there's always a better option when faced with two things... With a moral dilemma. Instead of it being "I hate him, he dies" or "he hates me, I die". The third and better option is "we both live, laugh and love".
Indeed it can and indeed it is... Because democracy like all other human institutions is a hierarchy of power. We elect people into power and influence over us believing they have our best interests at heart. Or that they will do right by us.
Bad tyrannies are malevolent dictatorships governed by a selfish person that doesn't hold themselves responsible/accountable for their actions.
Good tyrannies are democratic benevolent hierarchies where the wisest and most measured of us are elected to a position of power/authority but they meet that with a equal sense of responsibility and accountability for the whole, they use their power to be subservient to all that put them in that position.
Just in case Mr Smith! Is all ok?
Your definition, as I see it, exemplifies anti-empathy.
No, not telepathy. Quoting universeness
Yep, life couldn't be better for someone like me.
---
Evil is not something that needs a definition, oui mes amies?
Do you consider yourself evil?
A good question. What do you think? I've written many posts on this forum on a wide variety of topics, enough data to form a reasonable opinion on my moral character. So ... ?
Depends on what you have done/caused to happen to others in your life Mr Smith, not what you have posted on TPF.