I don't believe in evil. To be honest, even good and bad are kind of subjective as morals are fluid. What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise.
But if we accept our locality as a referential frame and accept our current ideas of good and bad as being valid, then your point is whether someone can ever do bad if they "think" they are doing good.
Tricky question and I'm going to give you conflicting answers. I really need a blackboard for this (I want to draw a truth table) but I'll try and write it out. Let's say you've got two situations. One where someone knowingly does bad, and one where someone doesn't. Let's say each other situations have two outcomes. One where bad happens and one where it doesn't. That's four outcomes.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Bad
This is a person who set out to do bad things. It's what we'd characterise as evil. Did Hitler want to do bad things? Psychologically, I think he did want revenge against his father and this was subject of transference on an ungodly scale.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Good
This is someone who wants to do bad, but is either not very good at it or the circumstances prevent it. They wouldn't be classed as evil, but they are.
Want: Good - Outcome: Bad
A man who drives carefully but still hits and kills and child crossing the road. Is he evil? No, but a child has been killed. He'll be seen in a worse light than the previous example. Is that fair? No.
Unfortunatly we still haven't established for 100% if Hitler really wanted to do bad things, but that's not your fault of course. We may never know.
I do disagree with you on one thing:
"What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise."
Sure, morality changes, but I feel SOME things are wrong no matter wat timeframe or culture you place them in. Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death for fun?
Wow, thank you. I agree with your points. I was careful to preface the Hitler thing with "I think". Two little words that can get you out of trouble. I agree with you that we don't truly know Hitler's motives. And as you say, may never.
You make a good point on bigger morals and the smaller ones do tend to be the most fluid. Bigger things (like torturing babies) are harder to imagine ever being different.
However, as strange as it sounds, the modern idea of protecting and nurturing babies didn't always exist. Even in Victorian times, children were seen as property and only of value when they could serve. Go back to medieval times and the church did indeed torture babies (amongst many others). It's not as prevalent as those who'd attack the church would have you believe but it did happen.
I kind of wish I'd thought about this before posting because it does make a great example for when people think they're doing ultimate good, but are actually doing bad. I couldn't think of a practical example and here it was all along!
I was thinking of the "trials by ordeal" where to prove someone innocent you subject them to something which will seriously harm them (if not kill them). If they are saved, then it is God's will and they are innocent. But if they die, they were guilty.
Everyone was subjected to this, babies included. A really horrible practice and not something that many people seem to know about these days.
"Everyone was subjected to this, babies included."
As horrible as that is, it wasn't done for fun and what I asked was: Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death FOR FUN?
So, I guess some morals (the bigger ones at least, such as torturing babies for fun) are timeless and limitless.
Still, the babies' suffering wouldn't have been any less unfortunately.
Well, yes, there was a bit of license involved there. "For fun" implies a load of people standing around grinning.
I could make the point about the psychological principle of all our actions ultimately being pleasure-seeking (even the ones which don't seem that way). It must be the case that there's some enjoyment in doing God's work even if the work is gristly. Maybe especially then. Although I think we've veered away from the track and I'm not religious so don't really feel qualified to say.
Talking about religion scientifically tends to annoy the religious in the same way that talking about science religiously offends the scientists.
Was Adolf Hitler really an evil person?
← View full post
I don't believe in evil. To be honest, even good and bad are kind of subjective as morals are fluid. What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise.
But if we accept our locality as a referential frame and accept our current ideas of good and bad as being valid, then your point is whether someone can ever do bad if they "think" they are doing good.
Tricky question and I'm going to give you conflicting answers. I really need a blackboard for this (I want to draw a truth table) but I'll try and write it out. Let's say you've got two situations. One where someone knowingly does bad, and one where someone doesn't. Let's say each other situations have two outcomes. One where bad happens and one where it doesn't. That's four outcomes.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Bad
This is a person who set out to do bad things. It's what we'd characterise as evil. Did Hitler want to do bad things? Psychologically, I think he did want revenge against his father and this was subject of transference on an ungodly scale.
Want: Bad - Outcome: Good
This is someone who wants to do bad, but is either not very good at it or the circumstances prevent it. They wouldn't be classed as evil, but they are.
Want: Good - Outcome: Bad
A man who drives carefully but still hits and kills and child crossing the road. Is he evil? No, but a child has been killed. He'll be seen in a worse light than the previous example. Is that fair? No.
Want: Good - Outcome: Good
Not relevant to the post.
--
Jan_Zondernaam
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Brilliant reply!
Unfortunatly we still haven't established for 100% if Hitler really wanted to do bad things, but that's not your fault of course. We may never know.
I do disagree with you on one thing:
"What is accepted as good in one country, religion, or time in history may be seen to be bad otherwise."
Sure, morality changes, but I feel SOME things are wrong no matter wat timeframe or culture you place them in. Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death for fun?
Still, brilliant reply!
--
Frosties
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wow, thank you. I agree with your points. I was careful to preface the Hitler thing with "I think". Two little words that can get you out of trouble. I agree with you that we don't truly know Hitler's motives. And as you say, may never.
You make a good point on bigger morals and the smaller ones do tend to be the most fluid. Bigger things (like torturing babies) are harder to imagine ever being different.
However, as strange as it sounds, the modern idea of protecting and nurturing babies didn't always exist. Even in Victorian times, children were seen as property and only of value when they could serve. Go back to medieval times and the church did indeed torture babies (amongst many others). It's not as prevalent as those who'd attack the church would have you believe but it did happen.
I kind of wish I'd thought about this before posting because it does make a great example for when people think they're doing ultimate good, but are actually doing bad. I couldn't think of a practical example and here it was all along!
--
Jan_Zondernaam
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Go back to medieval times and the church did indeed torture babies"
Could you please elaborate? Do you mean high-pregnant women being burnt at the stake for instance?
--
Frosties
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was thinking of the "trials by ordeal" where to prove someone innocent you subject them to something which will seriously harm them (if not kill them). If they are saved, then it is God's will and they are innocent. But if they die, they were guilty.
Everyone was subjected to this, babies included. A really horrible practice and not something that many people seem to know about these days.
--
Jan_Zondernaam
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Everyone was subjected to this, babies included."
As horrible as that is, it wasn't done for fun and what I asked was: Can you, for example, tell me of a time or a culture in which it was NOT wrong to torture a baby to death FOR FUN?
So, I guess some morals (the bigger ones at least, such as torturing babies for fun) are timeless and limitless.
Still, the babies' suffering wouldn't have been any less unfortunately.
--
Frosties
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, yes, there was a bit of license involved there. "For fun" implies a load of people standing around grinning.
I could make the point about the psychological principle of all our actions ultimately being pleasure-seeking (even the ones which don't seem that way). It must be the case that there's some enjoyment in doing God's work even if the work is gristly. Maybe especially then. Although I think we've veered away from the track and I'm not religious so don't really feel qualified to say.
Talking about religion scientifically tends to annoy the religious in the same way that talking about science religiously offends the scientists.