"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[amicus]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

This is probably the most quoted statement attributed to Burke, and an extraordinary number of variants of it exist, but all without any definite original source.

~~~

You need to scroll almost all the way to the bottom of the Wiki piece to find this.

I heard the quote on a rerun of NCIS tonight, that little darling, Mosaad girl, Ziva, but I had heard it before, we all have, I imagine.

I have participated in a long term discussion, alright, argument, here, first with Pure then Xssve, concerning the nature of good and evil. Both exponents of relativistic morality, in that they deny there is any absolute good or evil, that ethics and morality are 'situational' at best.

I am curious as to how that quote, and all that it entails, affects those who write and think and discuss; that evil exists only when good does nothing.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

We have reached the point in Western thought, for good or ill, where simplistic terms such as 'good' and 'evil' no longer apply. One mans' terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Hudson River Debating Society (aka the UN) is deemed worthy by many to control the world and bring a Pax Internationale to mankind. International law trumps a sovereign nations laws beyond it's borders, and so it goes.

Rationalization of terminologies such as 'good' and 'evil' further muddies the linguistic waters, thus making it more difficult to reach an agreement (or a course of action) on practically anything, and in turn precludes rational thought.

NewSpeak, anyone?

 

[xssve]

Ami? You're lying, lying like you don't care what the truth is, what do you call that?

Define evil.

 

[amicus]

One never knows where a thread will lead. Thus far we are told that good and evil are old fashioned concepts to be discarded; then the question, what is evil, define it.

Each has access to a dictionary, make your choice.

Good is that which benefits human life.
Evil is that which is destructive of human life.

Just for starters.

~~~

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/evil

ADJECTIVE: evil
e·vil·er , e·vil·est

Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.

Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.

Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

e⋅vil
–adjective

1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Pronunciation: \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil Date: before 12th century

~~~

I thought to see what Ayn Rand, Objectivism, might have to say, as I said, one never knows where a thread will lead.

Objectivism holds that evil is impotent in itself and can survive only with the aid (the sanction) of the good.

Similar to the quote attributed to Burke, maybe she read him...or others?

http://www.working-minds.com/ARquotes.htm (some Rand quotes)

For those who hear all the fuss about Ayn Rand, I thought perhaps you would find a source of quotes attributed to her, helpful.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction [that] you give it." ('John Galt Speech' 1957)

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
('Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' 1966)

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." ('The Fountainhead' 1943)

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is – i.e. he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e. he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."

~~~~

There again, you will find necessary references to root words such as value, ethics, morality and such, all of which require an acknowledgement and an understanding of that which is good, upon which all values rest.

Considering the definitions and meanings of words as old fashioned and not useful, is to discard the human mind as a tool of reason.

Amicus

 

[xssve]

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." ('The Fountainhead' 1943)

So go away.

 

[S-Des]

One mans' terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

One man's terrorist has always been another man's freedom fighter. We have reached a point where many people believe the only way to get along is to pretend the terrorist has some justification for his/her actions. This will last until the appeaser's particular ox is gored, then they'll complain loudly about good and evil. It's tired to me. Someone who is willing to look the other way against rapists, murderers and those willing to deny basic human rights to anyone who disagrees with them has no moral authority to claim they stand for anything. Of course people will try to equivocate, claiming a moral relativism between anyone they disagree with and real monsters, but that's just rationalization. All societies have elements of evil within them, but when the society stops decrying the evil, they themselves are evil.

Anyone who intentionally kills innocents is a terrorist, and there is nothing about them that could be called a "freedom fighter," except by the most disgusting over-generalizations. Do we equivocate for a pedophile by saying they have a unique sexual attraction to kids that shouldn't be judged? It's just bullshit to play that game.

 

[xssve]

Anyone who intentionally kills innocents is a terrorist, and there is nothing about them that could be called a "freedom fighter," except by the most disgusting over-generalizations.

Well you're right - what kind of asshole would do something like this?

Don't even click on that, I guarantee you'll regret it if you do. Some things you can't unsee.

Do we equivocate for a pedophile by saying they have a unique sexual attraction to kids that shouldn't be judged? It's just bullshit to play that game.

So who exactly is defending this? This has to do with what?

When in doubt bring up child molesters and terrorists?

I never said child molester ought not be judged, I've described in excruciating detail why and how we judge them, same deal with terrorists, a total waste of my time because you fuckers just make shit up and then pretend like you're really making a stand or something, it's bullshit, you're playing pretend, it's lying.

 

[S-Des]

I never said child molester ought not be judged, I've described in excruciating detail why and how we judge them, same deal with terrorists, a total waste of my time because you fuckers just make shit up and then pretend like you're really making a stand or something, it's bullshit, you're playing pretend, it's lying.

That's quite a sentence. It's even more interesting because I didn't quote you, I didn't mention you, nor did I ever think about you when I was making my post. I'd love to have you point out anywhere that I lied (or that I was talking about you, which you seem to be a little obsessed with). Why did I bring up Pedophiles? Because I believe an adult having sex with a child is an evil act. People who say that good and evil are antiquated terms evidently don't have as much of a problem with it as I do. That's their right, but I'm not going to agree with them because they tell me I'm old-fashioned.

BTW, I followed your link and it said that because of carelessness and lack of regulation, many people have been harmed. That is tragic and every effort should be made so something like it doesn't happen again. If you'd like to equate that with people who are taught to intentionally seek out innocents (especially women and children like at Beslan) and kill them en masse in order to get to heaven, that is your right. The fact that people like Dr. Rokke stand out and criticize our government for the wrongs it does (with no negative consequences to himself or his family) is perfect evidence of this country's desire to do right, even when it's easier not to. Amicus' point is confirmed by people like Dr. Rokke, who refuse to be silent because that would be the best way for evil to fester and eventually win.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Defining evil isnt rocket science. It's violence that produces no profit for you or your victims. Its knowing better, then doing worse.

 

[Liar]

The problem with evil is that it's too emotional. People can't seen to think rationally about it. And it doesn't adress the problem, just puts a symbolic label on it, and gets in the way of understanding and dealing with the actual issue. "Terrorism is evil." Ok. Then what? Does it stop terrorism?

Also, there is too much focus on asking "what things are evil?", when the first question should be "what IS evil?"

Pedophiles are evil. Terrorits are evil. Hitler was evil. Yeah yeah we've all heard that before. What specifically is it that makes them evil?

This is where you get into tricky territory. How about the pedophile who lives his whole life without touching a child? It happens. Men who avoid all contact with kids, or in some cases commit suicide because they fear they can't supress their urges and decides they can't expose the world to the risk that is them. Evil, or good in the face of a terrible situation? How about the suicide bomber who's been brain washed into thinking that killing Israelis is God's will? Evil, or merely fatally misinformed?

Evil, in my opinion, are conscious choices to do things you know are wrong. There's enough of that in the world to simplify everyhting else into wearing the same label.

 

[Liar]

Its knowing better, then doing worse.

Aye, that be it.

 

[xssve]

That's quite a sentence. It's even more interesting because I didn't quote you, I didn't mention you, nor did I ever think about you when I was making my post. I'd love to have you point out anywhere that I lied (or that I was talking about you, which you seem to be a little obsessed with). Why did I bring up Pedophiles? Because I believe an adult having sex with a child is an evil act. People who say that good and evil are antiquated terms evidently don't have as much of a problem with it as I do. That's their right, but I'm not going to agree with them because they tell me I'm old-fashioned.

Well to your credit you did bring up examples, which is a thing amicus seldom does, but I am curious why you bring up these particular examples? They are typical examples of "evil" right? Who doesn't fear terrorists? Who doesn't love kids and hate people who harm them?

Now, nobody said good and evil are antiquated terms, I certainly never said it, but you got the idea from somewhere that somebody did, maybe me - what I said is that they are value judgments, not a thing - there is no thing called evil, no seething ball of evil intent lurking in the shadows, it's a linguistic device, a symbolic concept used to differentiate the truly depraved from the merely very bad - a situation can be bad, even really bad, but not evil, we say "bad dog", but we seldom accuse dogs of being evil, not seriously, evil is usually only attributed to other human beings, or to things that threaten us personally - evil is anthropomorphic and personal.

The implication that amicus is making is that liberals are moral relativists, and moral relativists delight in all evil, terrorism and child molestation, and defend it's practitioners because of course, that's what moral relativism means, Rush Limbaugh has told you this a million times, and anybody who even hints that even in acts of evil, there are complicating factors is a moral relativist. To try to understand these things, to step back and look at both victim and perpetrator doesn't make the thing less tragic, it usually makes it more tragic. There is a fairly significant distinction between comprehension of a thing, and forgiveness or justification of it, though the distinction is often blurred by certain people. Consistently.

You've probably also heard ol' Rush talk about terrorists and child molesters and liberals all in the same breath so many times that it gets all mashed together in your pretty little head, until when somebody says "liberal" you react to "moral relativist, homosexual, pedophillic, terrorist symp".

Go ask any liberal soccer mom if she thinks pedophiles are merely misunderstood.

No, it's always Black and White, to wit:

BTW, I followed your link and it said that because of carelessness and lack of regulation, many people have been harmed. That is tragic and every effort should be made so something like it doesn't happen again. If you'd like to equate that with people who are taught to intentionally seek out innocents (especially women and children like at Beslan) and kill them en masse in order to get to heaven, that is your right. The fact that people like Dr. Rokke stand out and criticize our government for the wrongs it does (with no negative consequences to himself or his family) is perfect evidence of this country's desire to do right, even when it's easier not to. Amicus' point is confirmed by people like Dr. Rokke, who refuse to be silent because that would be the best way for evil to fester and eventually win.

So you didn't follow up on this? Did you google Depleted Uranium Munitions? If you had you might have found this article, where Rokke condemns the US military the deployment of Depleted Uranium Munitions in Puerto Rico during training exercises.

Nor that there is Depleted Uranium in Iraq left over - festering - from the First gulf war, that the number of these cases of fetal malformity is in the Thousands - it's not an "accident" Des, we do train them to kill people en masse, I was trained to kill people en masse - they know what these things do, but it costs money to clean it up, and taxes are more evil, no?

Now think for a minute: they are clearly evil, we have established that, but doesn't that make us good by definition? Are we not the very opposite of evil?

Evil is where you find it my dear.

 

[xssve]

Defining evil isnt rocket science. It's violence that produces no profit for you or your victims. Its knowing better, then doing worse.

This implies that it's not evil if there is profit involved?

 

[oggbashan]

This implies that it's not evil if there is profit involved?

The Nazis made a profit out of the Jews they killed. They took over their homes, collected their belongings, the clothing they were wearing when they went into the gas chambers, extracted their gold teeth, cut off the women's hair - and sold them.

Og

 

[xssve]

And fought over their clothes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This implies that it's not evil if there is profit involved?

What I mean by profit is personal gain or self-serving interest.

Here's an example of what I mean. At the end of the Civil War a Florida regiment was captured and sent to a prisoner of war camp. On the way to the camp the Florida prisoners overwhelmed the guards and drowned them in a creek. The prisoners then marched themselves to the camp. Murdering the guards served no one's interest. The prisoners made no effort to escape, nor were they harmed by the guards. They simply murdered the guards because they could.

One of my kinsmen experienced the same fate. His battalion was captured by Union soldiers. Once the weapons were collected the Union soldiers murdered the prisoners.

 

[Pure]

doesn't go very far

Good is that which benefits human life.
Evil is that which is destructive of human life.

this doesn't go very far. morality to serve life is an OT idea and earlier.

to show the problem, amicus supports torturing terrorist suspects, e.g. at baghram and guantanamo. some suspects die in 'enhanced interrogation.'

OTOH, some of us, including most of western europe says, 'out of respect for human dignity and FOR LIFE, do NOT torture.'

amicus, for example has little problem with 'collateral damage,' e.g. the iraqi civilian who die, while the bombs are aimed at the 'bad guys.'

OTOH, some of us are really upset at 'collateral damage,' loss of INNOCENT LIVES.

amicus, of course, says "that baby aint so innocent at all, after all, his mother is a next door neighbor of a terrorist and probably supports said terrorist.'

IOW some of us defend life pure and simple. we don't execute retarded teens. amicus says, 'guilty, hang 'em'.

amicus says, "LIFE is sacred, but the lives of the 'guilty' don't count.'
---

in pursuit of the LIFE amicus envisions, he'll kill readily. all for life. as the old mockery says 'kill for Christ." amicus says, "to serve life you gotta do a LOT of killing."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its easy to play Solomon when you have no dog in the fight. And its very different when something or someone important to you hangs from the balance.

When the outcome is THAT important, you'll do what needs to be done.

 

[Pure]

yes you do what has to be done. you 'kill for life.'

 

[Pure]

corollary

you may kill to defend your property.

 

[oggbashan]

you may kill to defend your property.

Not in the UK, you can't. You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or someone else, but NOT property.

Og

 

[Liar]

Not in the UK, you can't. You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or someone else, but NOT property.

Og

I think the key issue here is what is considered reasonable.

Which is always subject to somebody's arbitrary definiton.

 

[oggbashan]

I think the key issue here is what is considered reasonable.

Which is always subject to somebody's arbitrary definiton.

Case law has defined that shooting a burglar in the back as he is running away is unreasonable.

Og

 

[Tricialen]

I think it's a choice, to do good or evil or to be good or evil. I think that everyone, except a few, know the difference between right and wrong. It's like love. To love is a choice, a decision if you will that you choose to do, whether conscious or unconsciously. I think people are inherently good, until being bad seems to be more advantageous for us.

 

[cloudy]

Why does everyone think that anything is only black or white, good or evil? Don't y'all realize there are millions of shades of grey?