BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

EVIL

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:41 / 21.07.04
Well, we're into E-Prime aren't we? "According to my value system this..." bugger, I was never any good at working this out, but it is where we're heading isn't it?
 
 
Linus Dunce
17:19 / 21.07.04
I don't think the statement:

Well, I'd disagree that you have justified this on your own terms because the Americans can, and do, have a death penalty. That's their culture. You cannot have it both ways.

is coherent, because I don't think that there are actually two ways being had.

The two ways being had are that Anna was claiming to judge a society within its own context and at the same time coming to the conclusion that Americans should not have the death penalty. Americans, at the very least those in the states that continue to have the death penalty and even repeal its abolition, are largely quite happy with it. In the context of American society then, the death penalty is clearly OK. So how is Anna's judgement within the American context? The answer is, it isn't, and this disparity between Anna's stated method and and subsequent outcome is what I meant by having it both ways.
 
 
Linus Dunce
17:28 / 21.07.04
For what it's worth, I would say that the Mai Lai massacre was a bad thing. But then, I'm not the one saying all things are relative. But before I am asked to justify 'bad', allow me to refer you to my earlier comparison of evil with the colour red, which I will underscore here by comparing evil to the concept of infinity. Would you have me enumerate infinity? I do hope not. My keyboard is knackered enough already.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:12 / 21.07.04
Oh, I know *what* you were saying, I just don't think it's coherent. Proposing that absolute morality does not exist and proposing that you believe a certain act to be wrong are not incoherent. i think you and Anna have different definitions of "wrong", which is understandable, and you are trying to apply yours to her statement. I wrote a post about it just above.
 
 
Linus Dunce
21:25 / 21.07.04
Well, I'm not surprised you can't see its coherence because it wasn't written in reference to what *you* wrote, er, after I wrote it. I was writing about what Anna wrote, see?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:05 / 22.07.04
Sorry, Linus. I don't have time to be indulgent right now. Do you or do you not understand that the term "wrong" can have a number of different meanings, which can provide it as a relevant response within a number of different ethical systems?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
09:52 / 22.07.04
Someone said: "..I think the more interesting discussion to be had is in trying to identify aspects of morality which are, if not universal, then at least robust across cultures...."

This I would be interested in exploring because given that as someone who happens to live in a suburb of London (purely by historical accident) - a country which can define a dictator as 'evil' - then consistently lie to the population about the numbers of local (Iraq) people who died as a consequence of his actions - around 50% of the British population believe the lies and then the state can cheerfully arrange for 20,000 people to be killed in the interests of controlling the mineral resources of the land. Evil really doesn't help here does it - the point being that the use of the term in recent years is ALWAYS, as far as I can tell used in the interests of supporting a decision that should be rejected.

(I'm surprised that idiot didn't say the 1960s was evil... earlier in the week...)

Individual uses of the term such as "My sister is evil" or "Harold Shipman is evil" or "Heidegger was evil because he was a Nazi..." are either ludicrous or irrelevant statements... but generally understandable as I suspect the word is merely showing an individuals emotional response. But decisions and actions should never be taken by others on that basis.

To try and relate 'evil' to aspects of morality is equally irrelevant - does anyone imagine that Ancient Rome or Aztec, or the colonial invasion of the Americas that began in 1492 can be understood through the use of the term 'evil'.

In all these cases the moral is unclear but the applying of of moral judgements that derive by default from some religious text or other is I would imagine plainly unacceptable. Isn't it the case that deriving morals and ethics from religious positions is immoral ?

Let me remind everyone that Bishop Holloway would agree with me.

best
steve
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:23 / 22.07.04
The two ways being had are that Anna was claiming to judge a society within its own context and at the same time coming to the conclusion that Americans should not have the death penalty. Americans, at the very least those in the states that continue to have the death penalty and even repeal its abolition, are largely quite happy with it. In the context of American society then, the death penalty is clearly OK.

To be honest, I find this logic rather ludicrous. Anna's argument is based on the idea that one can't pass any judgement on anything without knowing the context in which it occurs, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. Therefore, without knowing anything about a particular rainforest tribe, it's impossible to judge whether or not the death penalty would be wrong for them. However, I assume that Anna knows well enough about the context in which the death penalty occurs in America to judge that it's wrong; your assumption seems to be that something's morality can be judged by whether the majority of people are OK with it. Most people in America were happy enough to go to war with Iraq. I think I'm still perfectly entitled to say that doing so was pretty definitely on the negative side of the moral scale. Sixty years or whatever ago most people would have been happy enough with racism; that certainly doesn't actually determine its morality.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:56 / 22.07.04
Implicit in the below quoted statement is the assumption that American society is in some form a moral society, I would assume that Anna was implying that it is immoral as a direct consequence of having the death penalty. This may be a logical step to far but still assuming the implication is there she is obviously correct -- It is true that in the USA the death penalty is used as a form of social control -- so the question is whether this means that it is possible for the state sponsored murder of human beings to be morally correct ? The reason for this rhetorical question is that punishment as carried out by the state does raise the question of the entire economy of punishment and consequently I believe that the question of it's 'morality' also raises this question...

"...Americans, at the very least those in the states that continue to have the death penalty and even repeal its abolition, are largely quite happy with it. In the context of American society then, the death penalty is clearly OK...."

Being quite happy to be a moral absolutist about this - "the state has no right to exercise any form of death penalty" -- any state that does cannot therefore be considered civilised. Is that clear enough ? This aspect doesn't after all seem to be an issue that requires a great deal of argument.

(And yes I really can't write coherently on this terribly designed screen - weird that.)
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:18 / 22.07.04
Individual uses of the term such as "My sister is evil" or "Harold Shipman is evil" or "Heidegger was evil because he was a Nazi..." are either ludicrous or irrelevant statements... but generally understandable as I suspect the word is merely showing an individuals emotional response. But decisions and actions should never be taken by others on that basis. - sdv

But you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't use the term "evil" because of its many associations and uses and then dismiss the uses that don't support your argument. The justification you give for this is that you have identified certain uses of the word "evil" as irrelevant or ludicrous because(?) they are part of an emotional response. Is there an implicit dichotomy here between emotion and reason? And are you implying that when Bush and Blair say a regime is evil this is...not emotional?

To try and relate 'evil' to aspects of morality is equally irrelevant - does anyone imagine that Ancient Rome or Aztec, or the colonial invasion of the Americas that began in 1492 can be understood through the use of the term 'evil'.

This is surely a straw man. No one is claiming that the use of the word "evil" magically invokes depth of insight. You don't understand something by calling it "evil", but that doesn't mean you preclude the possibility of understanding it by employing the word. You might want to argue the latter, but you can't do so simply by reference to the former. This relies, as on the previous assertion, on a studied denial of the usage of a particular word that doesn't fit your thesis. I think you have to work a lot harder than this to make your case.

Isn't it the case that deriving morals and ethics from religious positions is immoral?

I think it is moderately controversial to claim that a religious basis for morality is itself immoral and far from clear, even if one accepts that, that the morality produced is somehow flawed in and of itself.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:21 / 22.07.04
More than that, I know christians who have a far more nuanced view of evil than is being presented here.

But you imply here that only a small number of people know how to use the word in a certain way. Now everyone knows that leaf means a part of a tree (I could further define that by talking about colours etc. but I think you understand me) but everyone doesn't know the detail of the word evil from a Christian perspective. I could say to you, Lurid, I think your liberal approach to spreading butter on your toast is evil. I'd be using the word flippantly precisely because it's such a big, culturally referenced word. Likewise I could say 'George W. Bush is evil' but that wouldn't really tell you anything about my views of George Bush above the idea that I really disliked him and was prepared to morally judge him. My use of the word would actually tell you more about me than my thoughts on Bush and that's the difference between 'evil' and 'leaf'.

I don't think that it is either fair or correct to equate religion with his particular brand of ignorant fundamentalism

Okay, I'm about to be callous, please forgive me, I don't want to stamp on your toes but I'm sorry Lurid, I don't see your facts.

So Bush is a fundamentalist but to an atheist that's really just another brand of Christianity that's worse than the others. To broaden the outlook a little, women walk around in the hijab but their men don't, Catholics think sex is evil to the point where it's actually better to kill, Jewish men wear headgear to display their superiority- I think it's perfectly fair to equate religion with blind acceptance if not ignorance. A blind acceptance of what's right and wrong without applying what's actually happening.

I think the more interesting discussion to be had is in trying to identify aspects of morality which are, if not universal, then at least robust across cultures

But you have a problem because our cultures aren't so defined, they leak in to one another. First you need to define morality, whether it's a law thing, then you have to think about Westernization and then stretch it all out. Actually if you really want to talk about that then I bet 'laces would have some interesting things to say.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:18 / 22.07.04
But you imply here that only a small number of people know how to use the word in a certain way. Now everyone knows that leaf means a part of a tree...

Without wanting to digress into the realm of biology (where I think that things are far less self evident than you imply)...

All language is bound to be culturally specific and disputable - this really sounds like a truism to me - so that one cannot really object to the use of a particular word on the basis that it is contigent on context or "culturally referenced". Thats all I meant. Your examples of banal uses of the word "evil" don't really convince me of anything more than the word can be used in banal and flippant ways - I'm not sure that was ever in dispute. If you disagree I suggest you make like a tree and leaf.

Okay, I'm about to be callous...

I think I can take it.

So Bush is a fundamentalist but to an atheist that's really just another brand of Christianity that's worse than the others.

I don't think so. Or at least, it presents a wholly incomplete picture that I wouldn't quickly embrace myself. Christian tradition and thinking is rich and varied and I am not sure there is much to be gained in collapsing it down to a single entity.

You then present a few examples of this kind of collapse., I'll comment on this,

Catholics think sex is evil to the point where it's actually better to kill

since I can speak with some confidence about catholicism.

I will grant a definite historical tension with regards to sexual acts in catholic thinking, often but not exclusively expressed as mysogyny, and manifestations of that thinking in official doctrine on birth control and a celibate priesthood, but that isn't the whole story. Catholics vary in their views. Really quite a lot. And the majority I have known don't fit into a neat little box of sexually repressed and obsessed maniacs (though I won't deny the influence is present, which is why so many pervs are ex-catholic).

I think it's perfectly fair to equate religion with blind acceptance if not ignorance.

Do you? I don't. Not remotely fair or based in fact. Some of the most considered and complex people I have known have been religious. And it is quite hard for me to accept that you really hold this position. I think you are getting carried away with your point.

But you have a problem because our cultures aren't so defined, they leak in to one another. First you need to define morality, whether it's a law thing, then you have to think about Westernization and then stretch it all out.

Sure, its a tricky problem but I'm not sure it is completely hopeless. A good approach, I think, is to start from the proposition that humans are social animals - or is that controversial? - because I think that already has some implications for morality.
 
 
Linus Dunce
16:58 / 22.07.04
Now everyone knows that leaf means a part of a tree

Well, it can also mean a page from a book or the top of a table but that doesn't make the idea of a leaf a "nonsense." One can argue that communism has been used as an excuse to other and kill people and while there are many different strains of left-wing political thought that doesn't altogether mean there's no such thing as communism. Does it?
 
 
Linus Dunce
17:12 / 22.07.04
your assumption seems to be that something's morality can be judged by whether the majority of people are OK with it.

If you re-read my posts I hope you will see that is very much *not* what I am saying and I am dismayed that it is possible to read them that way.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
17:55 / 22.07.04
Linus - apart from perhaps levinas who believed that philosophy and thus thought begins from ethics and morality. The rest of us usually follow Kant, Hegel and Marx who in their different ways place before us 'critique' as that thing that secures the possibility of interrogating morality and ethics. Kant's text on pure reason starts off defining 'critique' as the tribunal of reason. In doing so Kant did not simply place secular reason and secular power above the divine laws, but also attacks the dogmatism of indifferentism and the resultant political despotism as well. Popular everyday notions of morality and ethics are precisely the indifferent thoughts that kant attacks so savagely. There is nothing as indifferent as the notion of 'evil' - as Anna and others have been pointing out - it's a short step from this to the realisation that critique in both its pure and total forms is always the best safeguard from the terrors of the badly applied morality.

The answer to your implicity question of morality/ethics is not to discuss morality - but rather to raise the level to critique...

It was, I think, Max Weber who defined liberalism as the doctrine which believes that only the state has the right to violence. The anti-liberal positions on the left and the right for very different reasons reject this - the left has always maintained that liberal-democratic systems whilst pretending that violence should never be used as a means in politics have in reality maintained themselves through structural and institutional violence. Given the murderous and anti-democratic behaviour of the neo-liberals and liberals over the past two decades isn't it clear that any critique of violence, and thus of the use of justificatory terms like 'evil', must begin from the here and now, rather than from the adoption of phrases and positions that the spectacle and Thatcher's children use with such happiness...? (Politics cannot be subordinated to morality or ethics in other words).

To bring 'Communism' into the disuccsion is merely to produce another indifferentist object whilst carefully ignoring the actual violence that the world is suffering under - violence that is defined in Europe at least by Thatcher's Son (Blair/Brown must make Maggie proud) openly discussing the possibility of his 6th war in Sudan... (a military action which I would probably support incidentally)

best
steve
 
 
Linus Dunce
18:33 / 22.07.04
The rest of us usually follow Kant, Hegel and Marx

Don't worry, I'm quite sure of that. But you, SDV, also seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that because I do not support what Haus described as subjectivism, I must therefore be down on one knee praying for all your immortal souls while checking that's OK with the Pope. Has it occurred to you that it might be your critique itself I find faulty? Perhaps I -- by trying to pick holes in your attempts to reduce human experience to a carte grise upon which to scribble explications of the world the way you wish it would be -- am performing some kind of Hegelian function? I dont know; if I were, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say so without being very sure I was successful. And I can't say that I am.

Marx. Wasn't he the guy with the line, "spirit in a spiritless world."?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
12:00 / 23.07.04
your assumption seems to be that something's morality can be judged by whether the majority of people are OK with it.

If you re-read my posts I hope you will see that is very much *not* what I am saying and I am dismayed that it is possible to read them that way.

Could you, then, please explain exactly what you meant by:

Americans, at the very least those in the states that continue to have the death penalty and even repeal its abolition, are largely quite happy with it. In the context of American society then, the death penalty is clearly OK.

... As I find it rather difficult to see how it could mean anything other than, "The death sentence is OK in America because the people generally support it." No?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:20 / 23.07.04
Just a quick note - I think this discussion probabyl profits from being focused reasonably tightly on the problem of evil, rather than the general validity of religion or the specific evils of liberal society. While very interesting tpicsboth, worthy of their own threads, trying to handle them here will make the discussion hopelessly diffuse.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
01:09 / 24.07.04
subjectivism... laughs (I missed that joke) - true true the very notion of critique may be faulty - but I've never been sure that the anti-critique perspectives have a fine enough grasp of the nature of the society we live in.

No victory over inhumanity seems to have made the world safer for humanity, perhaps because moral triumphs do not accumulate like capital, rather we can see that inhumanity always haunts us. As such then I do doubt that we can ever achieve moral progress - '...all to often the great persecutors are recruited among the maryrs not quite beheaded...'

What I am sure is that the use of 'evil' whether it has religious or secular origins will always end up in terror.

let a hundred flowers bloom...
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:07 / 25.07.04
sdv -- so (leaving aside your conflation of your own opinion with critique), for my prescribing *one* concept of evil, you are saying I'm what, exactly? Would being the cause of all this terror make me somehow ... bad? Is that what you're saying?

You can see the problem here, surely?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
06:25 / 26.07.04
I was referring to the differences between between thought and socio-political opinions based on 'critique' and those that are anti-critique for example post-structural and related positions.

no i wasn't saying that - though if you wish to flagallate yourself go ahead. I was however pointing out that no victory over what on this thread has been called 'evil' has ever made the world safer (using the words of Cioren incidentally). The rest of the case for trying some other approach and not jusing such a loaded ter is i think obvious enough...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
06:54 / 26.07.04
Yes... except that, since dissent exists, you are clearly mistaken in that belief. I think what you are trying to say is that as an institutional terminology, "evil" is used to justify acts of violence against other groups whose subjection to those acts of violence is not morally compelled. However, that is not a winning case against the word, or indeed the concept, but rather against a particular form of rhetoric, no? One could as well argue against "cruel" or "unfair"...
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:28 / 26.07.04
A resonable point but only if the point underlying this discussion on 'what is evil?" is merely to understand the way the world functions rather than to question whether 'evil' is a useful and usable concept.

In your re-interpretation of my statements you correctly identify bthat I am addressing the use of 'evil in institutional and social contexts - but where you say "..."evil" is used to justify acts of violence against other groups whose subjection to those acts of violence is not morally compelled...." This reads to me as if it contains the assumption that the use of the term 'evil' can justify anti-evil violence but it does not explain why specific 'morally compelled' violence is justifiable using the term - it seems reasonable for me to state that it cannot. (You didn't expect me to accept such a rationale did you ?)

To invert this question - given the actual contemporary use of the term how can you justify it's casual use ?

I'm confused by your claim that the term 'evil' can be seperated from its rhetorical use. It is my understanding that 'evil' is nothing but rhetoric. Otherwise I would be accepting that the real discussion here should be between those uses of 'evil' which are 'genuine evil' and those which are 'false evil' - which since 'evil' does not exist I can't possibly do...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:06 / 26.07.04
Hmmm. Very well. "Rhetorical" here specifically meaning the rhetoric of the agora - a terminology used to drive a society towards an action. Rather than a use such as "Victor Ebuwa/ the international cosmetics industry/ Barbie is evil", which is simply a statement of strong personal dislike. See also "cruel", "unfair" and al sorts of other value terms used in a specific sense in the agora which they are not used in in, say, a game of Monopoly.

(If you read again, btw, I think you will find that I was not advancing such a rationale - I was making sure I understood your premise. We're going to have to work on simplifying the language a bit, clearly)

To invert this question - given the actual contemporary use of the term how can you justify it's casual use ?

Well, because any reasonably bright person with a decent grasp of English will be able to disentangle the issues here, and also understand that there is not a single actual contemporary use. I really don't see the problem; either one whiles away the evenings with a copy of Paradise Lost and a black magic marker, which is a perfectly charming hobby but not much of an affect, or one gets the hang of the concepts and decides whether to integrate them into one's expressive toolkit. If you have decided that you are not able or willing, or your friends are not able or willing, to disentangle the idea of evil as used as an institutional terminology, as used as a moral absolute, as used as a subjective descriptive... well, that's fine. But it's not universalisable.

So, when you say:

Otherwise I would be accepting that the real discussion here should be between those uses of 'evil' which are 'genuine evil' and those which are 'false evil' - which since 'evil' does not exist I can't possibly do...

Your statement is incoherent. If you were talking about *instances* of evil, it would just about make sense, although "since evil does not exist" is presumptive logic, but *uses* of evil - the existence or otherwise of evil in the sense of an independent and transcendent moral entity does not justify the statement "evil does not exist". I can describe something as a "gargantuan mistake" without the Rabellaisian giant existing. So, the very sentence acknowledges that the noun evil exists, whether or not you believe that the transcendent moral quality that it can identify exists or not. Therefore the concept of evil exists, the adjective "evil" exists... the existence of evil is actually reinforced by your sentence.

Your claim is that (in your opinion) a transcendent quality identifiable as a unity and quiddity of capital-E Evil does not exist, and that the assumption of that capital-E Evil is what underpins the rhetoric employed by a variety of systems of government to identify and drive action against their opponents. This is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't actually go as far as I think you think it does, which is far enough to make the concept and the word unusable in any context by any right-thinking person. Put the other way, I don't think one can get one's superior person membership card by scrupulously favouring "wrong".

Now, personally, I would say that government should not be a moral enterprise, and thus that that usage is intrinsically suspect anyway, but there we go. That's not exactly the issue.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:10 / 26.07.04
Tannce

Could you explain why govenment should not be a moral enterprise ?

And we differ in that I do regard the use of the terms 'evil' to justify supporting a govenmental or other institutional action to be incorrect...

thanks
steve
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:31 / 26.07.04
Tannce

We appear to agree that the use of the term by institutional spokespeople - politicians and perhaps media journalists etc is unacceptable.

But whereas I am suggesting that when and if you use such a term to describe Hussain, Bush, Blair or Shipman it is neither helpful or particularly descriptive - given the cultural baggage that accompanies it -- you apppear to be accepting that an unqualified and everyday use of the term is acceptable.

Perhaps so. However I'm not sure why a media representation/politician should not be allowed to use what is a derogatory term but you believe that you can ?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:16 / 27.07.04
you apppear to be accepting that an unqualified and everyday use of the term is

Did I say "unqualified" anywhere? I don't believe I did. If you mean "without qualifying its usage by adding a codicil to every incidence of usage", I would suggest instead that the codicil is provided by other people being intelligent users of language, just as I do not have to stop and explain every time I use the word "leaf". If I am talking to somebody who does not understand my usage of "leaf", I would. If I am talking to somebody who does not understand my usage of "evil", likewise. In both cases, I can tailor my speech accoridng to the intelligence of the user of language to whom I am speaking.

Now, I have just explained at length the difference between my use of "evil" and its use in institutional rhetoric - if you could come back and explain what exactly is confusing you, I could try to support that... In short, I am saying that I and a government are doing very different things with the word - see above.

As for moral government - I think that would be threadrot. New thread, anyone?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
09:00 / 27.07.04
So any use you make of the word 'evil' must be explained and qualified. Your position is clear - but not one I can occupy myself.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:54 / 27.07.04
Well, that's a position for you to decide for yourself, and certainly one that is worthy of respect, but I think your model is a little off in emphasis. Most uses of evil are automatically qualified by the intelligence of the interlocutors. A baseline intelligent interlocutor with a sympathetic culture can probably be relied upon to understand and interpret with a degree of success. If you don't believe your interlocutor is competent to interpret and understand - if you are unfamiliar with that interlocutor, or don't think they are bright or culturally attuned, then you may want to qualify, or avoid use of the term. Much like "leaf", or indeed "wrong".
 
 
sdv (non-human)
18:24 / 27.07.04
Yes that does rather clearly summerizes the differend between our perspectives -- your approach, as shown in the statements you are making assumes a lack of cultural baggage that I do not feel it is wise to accept.

I use the term 'differend' to emphasize that it's not a disagreement as such because a differend, is a conflict between one who says 'x' and another who says 'a' and as such neither can be said to be saying the same thing about this thing, a disagreement being the case where someone says 'x' and another who says 'x' but where both parties do not understand the same by 'x' or perhaps do not understand that the other is saying the the same thing in the name of 'x' (evil).

The key to the differend between us may be in the different linguistic turns evidenced in one of your posts - I'm not currently working in this way of thinking and do not wish to explore that (sorry)
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply