Good and evil and everything in between

[Keroin]

Prepare for a mindless ramble.

I’m reading The Book Thief and I just finished The Reader. It’s pure coincidence that I found myself with two books about Nazi Germany but it got me to thinking about good and evil. Well, the books and a few other things.

I’ve mentioned before that I used to see life in very black and white terms but I do not anymore. Life is simpler when it’s divided into neat categories but I’m not sure it’s any better. Good people can commit atrociously evil acts and bad people can display enormous kindness. People do the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons. With so much grey, how do we draw the lines between good and evil? And who decides which is which?

Consider that there are a whole lot of people out there who would classify most folks on this board as depraved, at best, and as evil, at worst. And most people on this board would disagree with that judgment. So who decides?

Last night I had a conversation with a man about America. He’s from Sweden but was born in Tehran and spent some of his childhood there. He assumed I was an American and wanted to know how my country had let Bush, (a man he considers as evil as most Americans consider Bin Laden), stay in power for two terms. There was a little anger in his question but mostly he was puzzled. (I think I did a good job defending/explaining my US amigos, at least I hope so). But he said something that struck me. He said, “People are more willing to accept evil when it wears a suit and tie”.

I can’t get his words out of my head.

My concept of good and evil is mostly based on experience. I have no religion or spiritual leanings, so I don’t have any written guidelines I follow. My commandments exist in my gut and my heart. I don’t pretend that my gut and heart are always right but they serve me well enough.

I’ve seen a lot of ugly in my travels. Thankfully, I’ve also seen a lot of beautiful. Often, they exist where you least expect them to.

I’m curious to know what people here have to say about all this.

 

[Betticus]

Wow, just jump right into the philosophical deep end there...

 

[graceanne]

Well, the average mass murderer type person (like ted bundy) is white, attractive, charming . . . .

 

[Keroin]

Wow, just jump right into the philosophical deep end there...

Well, at least I'm skinny dipping in the deep end. So, it's not all bad.

Welcome to Keroin's cranium. Please keep your hands inside the cart at all times and remember no flash photography.

 

[Keroin]

Well, the average mass murderer type person (like ted bundy) is white, attractive, charming . . . .

Hm, I'm not familiar with the demographics of serial killers. But it makes sense that a charming, white, man would have an easier time flying beneath the radar, not to mention attracting victims.

 

[graceanne]

Hm, I'm not familiar with the demographics of serial killers. But it makes sense that a charming, white, man would have an easier time flying beneath the radar, not to mention attracting victims.

Pretty much. People will avoid the creepy guy staring at them in the diner, but will willingly go with the cute guy who wants a drink.

The other interesting statistic is that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone known and trusted by the victim.

 

[00Syd]

Pretty much. People will avoid the creepy guy staring at them in the diner, but will willingly go with the cute guy who wants a drink.

The other interesting statistic is that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone known and trusted by the victim.

That statistic has actually been debunked, somewhat. the factoid always being thrown around says that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone in the victims family, and that's true, but the only thing ever recorded in police reports is that they are in the same family, not their relation to each other. Most often that sort of thing happens between people who are in the same family, but by marriage, not by blood. Its much, much rarer for people who are actually, physically, blood related to kidnap and murder each other.

*the more you know!*

 

[Keroin]

Pretty much. People will avoid the creepy guy staring at them in the diner, but will willingly go with the cute guy who wants a drink.

The other interesting statistic is that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone known and trusted by the victim.

Not surprising at all.

So, here's a question then: If everything about Bush was completely the same except that he had a beard and wore turban, would he still have been elected? (Once, never mind twice.)

 

[Keroin]

That statistic has actually been debunked, somewhat. the factoid always being thrown around says that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone in the victims family, and that's true, but the only thing ever recorded in police reports is that they are in the same family, not their relation to each other. Most often that sort of thing happens between people who are in the same family, but by marriage, not by blood. Its much, much rarer for people who are actually, physically, blood related to kidnap and murder each other.

*the more you know!*

Hi Syd!

Interesting update. Thanks.

So, most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone who knows the victim in some capacity?

 

[graceanne]

That statistic has actually been debunked, somewhat. the factoid always being thrown around says that most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone in the victims family, and that's true, but the only thing ever recorded in police reports is that they are in the same family, not their relation to each other. Most often that sort of thing happens between people who are in the same family, but by marriage, not by blood. Its much, much rarer for people who are actually, physically, blood related to kidnap and murder each other.

*the more you know!*

I didn't say in the immediate family. I said is known and trusted. Could be a neighbor, a teacher, someone who's at the park every day.

Not surprising at all.

So, here's a question then: If everything about Bush was completely the same except that he had a beard and wore turban, would he still have been elected? (Once, never mind twice.)

If Bush had a beard and a turban he wouldn't have been elected, period. Just the beard would have kept him from becoming president. It's not coincidence that their hasn't been a president with face hair in about 100 years.

 

[Keroin]

I didn't say in the immediate family. I said is known and trusted. Could be a neighbor, a teacher, someone who's at the park every day.



If Bush had a beard and a turban he wouldn't have been elected, period. Just the beard would have kept him from becoming president. It's not coincidence that their hasn't been a president with face hair in about 100 years.

Why are we so shallow?

 

[graceanne]

Why are we so shallow?

*shrugs*

Good question. One to ask a professional. But not voting for someone because they have face hair is as stupid as voting for them because of their skin color or they have a nice smile (a reason someone I know voted for Clinton).

 

[00Syd]

Hi Syd!

Interesting update. Thanks.

So, most kidnappings and murders are committed by someone who knows the victim in some capacity?

Yes, as far as I know.

I didn't say in the immediate family. I said is known and trusted. Could be a neighbor, a teacher, someone who's at the park every day.

I know, it just made me think of that tidbit of information.

It's interesting because a lot of the time we read "Child slays mother!" or something like that, and more often then not it's a step mother or an adoptive mother. Not that that makes it any less awful, just an interesting thing to think about.

 

[Keroin]

Yes, as far as I know.



I know, it just made me think of that tidbit of information.

It's interesting because a lot of the time we read "Child slays mother!" or something like that, and more often then not it's a step mother or an adoptive mother. Not that that makes it any less awful, just an interesting thing to think about.

So what's your take on the whole good and evil thing?

 

[Homburg]

Why are we so shallow?

It is a cultural thing. Completely aside from beard associations with "those damned ay-rabs", modern generic white culture finds beards both mildly intimidating, and mildly unclean. In short, it signifies danger at a very sub-sub-conscious level.

 

[YourCaptor]

When it comes to group and culture dynamics in the context of atrocities, the truth of the matter is not comforting at.

When we look at the actual psychology amongst the average joe who took part the crimes, it takes some courage to accept that what drove them to act as they did is present within all of us.

Nazi germany is often sited as a unique example of people gone bad. However all major colonial powers committed exactly the same crimes, the only difference being that nazi germany did it at home, to other Europeans.

From British colonist blowing out the brains of kidnapped Africans as stress relief, to American soldiers franticly shooting 25 thousand rounds into the Vietnamese jungles for everyone 1 hit.

Racism, classicism, its all there in our nature. You don’t learn it, its already there, and it will always be. Its just comes natural to us all, its part of being human.

To measure people by our own classification of success, and then view those who don’t measure up as backward, lesser, inferior, it is simply a human reaction.

 

[WriterDom]

So is Obama evil for sending more troops into Afghanistan and continuing the illegal and immoral war in Iraq? Not to mention a few 2000 pound bombs in Pakistan. I don't think so. I think security briefings make you a realist.

 

[Homburg]

Nazi germany is often sited as a unique example of people gone bad. However all major colonial powers committed exactly the same crimes, the only difference being that nazi germany did it at home, to other Europeans.

From British colonist blowing out the brains of kidnapped Africans as stress relief, to American soldiers franticly shooting 25 thousand rounds into the Vietnamese jungles for everyone 1 hit.

Waitwaitwait.

You are saying that a colonist murdering a kidnappee is somehow equal to grossly shitty marksmanship in an active hot war, and that both are somehow the same as organised, industrial-scale genocide?!? What the fuck is wrong with your sense of perspective?

I may not be an expert on the history of African colonialism, and know of some nasty atrocities, but, jumping jesus balls, it is not the same as what happened in Buchenwald and Aushwitz. And 25k rounds for every one hit? Who gives a jumped-up fuck in comparison to what occurred behind those camp walls? Criminally bad shooting is not a crime against humanity, no matter how loudly Jeff Cooper might bitch.

If you want to make fair comparisons to Nazi Germany, look towards Pol Pot or Stalin (who made Hitler look like a piker). Those are reasonable comparisons. Shitty marksmanship though? I'm all for legalisation, but whatever you are smoking doesn't need to be available for public consumption.

 

[WriterDom]

From British colonist blowing out the brains of kidnapped Africans as stress relief, to American soldiers franticly shooting 25 thousand rounds into the Vietnamese jungles for everyone 1 hit.

We shot a lot of bullets into the jungle of Korea too. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather live in South Korea than under communism. Hell, the SK are four inches taller now than the red cousins.

The lesson of Vietnam was let the professionals run the battleground and not some Texan in the White House. But you can't win a war with a country with porous borders and outside help. Ask the Russians about Afghanistan. I don't see us wiinning there either. But it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't want to let go either.

 

[00Syd]

So what's your take on the whole good and evil thing?

What, beyond good=good and evil=evil? Fuck if I know.

I do enjoy thinking about how people would not be 'evil' without religion, just bad, badder and baddest.

 

[Keroin]

Waitwaitwait.

You are saying that a colonist murdering a kidnappee is somehow equal to grossly shitty marksmanship in an active hot war, and that both are somehow the same as organised, industrial-scale genocide?!? What the fuck is wrong with your sense of perspective?

I may not be an expert on the history of African colonialism, and know of some nasty atrocities, but, jumping jesus balls, it is not the same as what happened in Buchenwald and Aushwitz. And 25k rounds for every one hit? Who gives a jumped-up fuck in comparison to what occurred behind those camp walls? Criminally bad shooting is not a crime against humanity, no matter how loudly Jeff Cooper might bitch.

If you want to make fair comparisons to Nazi Germany, look towards Pol Pot or Stalin (who made Hitler look like a piker). Those are reasonable comparisons. Shitty marksmanship though? I'm all for legalisation, but whatever you are smoking doesn't need to be available for public consumption.

Hi Homburg!

You bring up an interesting point and it's something that I wonder about. How do we define levels of evil. Is murder "better" if there is only one victim compared to a thousand, or several thousand? Is a war with a million casualties better than genocide with a million casualties? Is a crime of passion more forgivable than a calculated crime? I'm not taking a side here, I'm honestly curious.

In Vietnam, for example, there wasn't a planned, mass murder carried out in a ruthless and efficient manner but there were atrocities. And the defoliation of that country, because of the weapons used in the war, continues to cause suffering for the Vietnamese people on a large scale. Are the sufferings of those people less significant than, say, than that of the survivors in Rwanda?

Is one kind of bad worse than another kind of bad and, if so, why and how do we decide? Better yet, who decides?

 

[Keroin]

I do enjoy thinking about how people would not be 'evil' without religion, just bad, badder and baddest.

Yeah, I'm with you there. Evil is such an interesting concept. I'm also intrigued by the idea that many people, (nut cases excluded), who do very bad things do them with what they consider very good intentions.

 

[00Syd]

Yeah, I'm with you there. Evil is such an interesting concept. I'm also intrigued by the idea that many people, (nut cases excluded), who do very bad things do them with what they consider very good intentions.

Right. And does that make them evil?

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Yeah, I'm with you there. Evil is such an interesting concept. I'm also intrigued by the idea that many people, (nut cases excluded), who do very bad things do them with what they consider very good intentions.

This discussion reminds me a bit of St. Augustine's treatment of lying. He noted that someone can intend to tell the truth, but be mistaken, and thereby tell a falsehood, while another, also mistaken, can intend to speak falsely and tell the truth. My conclusion is that, since we cannot know with certainty another person's intent, the only thing we can address is the truth or falsity of their words (speaking philosophically; of course, judges, inter alia, have the unenviable task of attempting to ascertain intent).

Likewise with good and evil. Since we cannot peer into another person's soul, it strikes me as a bit arrogant to speak of good or evil persons. At best, we can only say that their actions are good or evil.

 

[Keroin]

This discussion reminds me a bit of St. Augustine's treatment of lying. He noted that someone can intend to tell the truth, but be mistaken, and thereby tell a falsehood, while another, also mistaken, can intend to speak falsely and tell the truth. My conclusion is that, since we cannot know with certainty another person's intent, the only thing we can address is the truth or falsity of their words (speaking philosophically; of course, judges, inter alia, have the unenviable task of attempting to ascertain intent).

Likewise with good and evil. Since we cannot peer into another person's soul, it strikes me as a bit arrogant to speak of good or evil persons. At best, we can only say that their actions are good or evil.

Yes, but…hm.

Had an interesting run in with OSG over on another thread, regarding real vs pretend slavery, (something else that brought me to the current topic). In one of the books I read recently about the human slave trade, based on the research they did and the facts they gathered, the authors argued that the trafficking of humans for the slave trade would not be possible, (or would at least be seriously diminished), if it weren’t for all the third parties. That is: the customs officials who turn a blind eye, the police who take bribes, the politicians who refuse to enact laws, etc, etc. These people’s actions, (or lack thereof), on the surface, are not so terrible but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t any less culpable than the guys who are physically moving and torturing these women and children.

If we were to bring all the guilty parties to trial, though, who would be more vilified, the man who carried a woman into a foreign country, against her will, to make her a slave or the man who knowingly let that man cross the border with false papers?