People we see as "evil", are we being ignorant of their brilliance?

[Spleeni]

Oooh! Ooooh! Superhero time!

Let's start with something easy:

It's a dark night, with no-one on the street except yourself and your fine handgun. Obviously, you hurry home; but in doing so, nearly blindside an unshaven, crazed (or possibly drunken) man. He demands in a slurred voice, "HEY! Whast a fine castch doin' here fur me? Youst wanna comes with me? Yesss you do, doncha?"
He punches you down to the ground, gropes for a gun, finds it, and begins to pull it out.

What do you do? You are on the floor about to be (at least, you hope not) either assaulted, raped, or worse.

The above situation has...let's see....3-4 different actions available.

1. Shoot the S.O.B.
2. Kick his feet out from under him, risking his gun discharging, or him stepping back and capping your fine ass
3. Run away, keep running, don't stop. Possibly while shrieking as a schoolgirl.
4. Pleading for mercy

I'm going to bet that most people are going to go for the EVIL, MURDERING option of 1, so let's add some additional options:
If you chose 1, then you can shoot him in the leg, the groin, the hand, or the head. Remember that you are not only on the ground, slightly dazed, but have very little time to aim before he has his gun out.


Now compare your MURDERING actions on what you would do to help a random person on a given day. How often do you help beggars? Shoot kittens for sport? Are you as evil as you are good? Would you say that this married man of 16 is now dead for a good reason? Would you regret your decision, and gone for a less lethal option?

CONGRADULATIONS! You were on a Surprise Reality Game Show; and now you must defend your murdering ass in front of a judge! What would you say?

Can we all agree that there are shades of gray in every moral decision?
(You don't have to answer every single question, all but the very last were to make you think)

 

[Kevvers]

I made a topic about this last night, whether morals are universal.

And I believe good and evil are a product of our empathy, and we are born with a sense of right and wrong.

Confucius believed that everyone was born inherently good. You wouldn't push a baby down a well, would you?

Some people would, remember James Bulger. Some people are just born psychopathic killers.

 

[Akasha666]

Genocide, Rape and torture - all of them have been used in excess in history and sometimes textbooks tell that it was for the greater good. Or more common - those weary facts that lead to the result are left out so they may not soil the triumph that was reached. I personally started believe that those evil deeds were just. Those are military decision where dead bodies get translated into algebra and end up in statistical projections. I found that rather appealing. But reading about more and more decisions that had been made in the past I become more and more appalled by the thought as those numbers have become such a strong argument in so many discussions. Leave alone the fact that statistics now allow to calculate body counts into units like USD or ?.

I agree that there are theoretical situation where a genocide would have actually prevented a lot more bloodshed. But who is to decide when the killing of a whole nation or its leading elite is the right way to go? Are you qualified to make such an decision? If you are I´d pity you for your burden. There is so much ignorance in this world that it seems to be impossible for me to solve it with a surgical strike to a single base.

I am not yet driving around in my brightly rainbow colored VW beetle and teach peace and happiness <- sarcasm . But seeing corporate interests commit or condone genocide for financial gain or lack there off... Well, just say - You would have spoken to my heart only a few years ago. But no human being is able to make a decision that you would ask him to do. I still agree that in dire situation a quick decision to kill will save life. But such tactics should be taught to officers who are heading to the front. We, the fortunate who sit in our peaceful countries and have time to discuss Adolf Hitler on a Game forum, we should spend more time on a non-violent approach to threatening situations. And no - I am not going to quote Gandhi now - but I could if forced to

I used to strongly believe in ideologies, just causes and the goodness of a fellow man. How could have I not when I was goodygoody myself? Gradually my eyes began to open as I saw some of the forces at the backround of these ideologies and deeds. Now I see them as ways of getting masses moving, those people who settle for black and white truths. Pure idealists are too rare to usually change the world.

Who is to decide killing? Why he who has the power to do so of course. If we agree that there are no universal goods or bads, rights or wrongs then we agree that all deeds are equally good or bad unless a certain mechanism is specified to quantify the amount of good and bad a decision has. Usually this mechanism is the demographic majority of people sharing similiar morals on a certain issue but seeing how the death of a few people in US 2001 justified invasion of two countries in the eyes of a majority, this mechanism is obviously vulnerable to manipulation. I claim that non-violent and violent approach have no difference, only the result has any meaning and how it effects you and those you care about.

A few posts above s0denone called you a cynic. And without meaning any disrespect I have to admit that seems to be well earned, dear friend

When I look at the world I can often see the masses being wielded by questionable headlines screaming murder. I can see religions teaching love turning people into explosives thrown into wars. And I can see politicians asking us to abandon personal liberties to guarantee us our freedom. Yes, that is a place where cynicism flourishes. What else would be up to describe the underlying humor of such an unamusing spectacle.

You hold up your claim that only the person who has been given the power to change the world will decide how the world will look after his deeds. And it will be decided on the grounds of moral - a moral established by a demographic majority - if his deeds were good or evil. Therefore, a leader who serves the majority of the people will always be condoned for his missteps were a leader who serves a minority - a leading elite - will be crucified the moment he looses his power. And you agree that this mechanism is ultimately flawed since it will always be manipulated to serve personal interest - interest that will bring harm to the people.

My claim is that this is the reason why there is a difference in a violent / non-violent approach. Say you are told to go to a place on the other side of a rock that is blocking your way. Your choices are to pass it on the left or the right. No matter what way you choose your destination won´t be affected by your decision. The only thing that will be different is you.
A person who clings to violence is violent.

I say that there are times where a violent leader brought quick solutions to complicated situation benefiting a huge majority. And reading one of your first posts on this thread you think that Hitler would have been one of those if he hadn´t started his maniac competition with a bear in the east. But I disagree. A country like the German Reich that he was imagining would only have been stable under violence since it was born through violence. There are many examples of great conquerors - the Hun, the Mongol, the Khmer (well they were small in comparison but I just read about them ), the Romans, the Inca... - they all formed empires that spread almost to the ends of the known world. But they were all bound to crumble on the first sight of weakness. Violence is sometimes the only way to defend values. But used to achieve something like brilliance - I can´t think of an example where that happened. Every achievement made reflects the means that were used to reach it. And a unity of countries formed under violence is always bound to bleed.

 

[Dele]

A few posts above s0denone called you a cynic. And without meaning any disrespect I have to admit that seems to be well earned, dear friend

When I look at the world I can often see the masses being wield by questionable headlines screaming murder. I can see religions teaching love turning people into explosives thrown into wars. And I can politicians asking us to abandon personal liberties to guarantee us our freedom. Yes, that is a place where cynicism flourishes. What else would be up to describe the underlying humor of such an unamusing spectacle.

You hold up your claim that only the person who has been given the power to change the world will decide how the world will look after his deeds. And it will be decided on the grounds of moral - a moral established by a demographic majority - if his deeds were good or evil. Therefore, a leader who serves the majority of the people will always be condoned for his missteps were a leader who serves a minority - a leading elite - will be crucified the moment he looses his power. And you agree that this mechanism is ultimately flawed since it will always be manipulated to serve personal interest - interest that will bring harm to the people.

My claim is that this is the reason why there is a difference in a violent / non-violent approach. Say you are told to go to a place on the other side of a rock that is blocking your way. Your choices are to pass it on the left or the right. No matter what way you choose your destination won´t be affected by your decision. The only thing that will be different is you.
A person who clings to violence is violent.

I say that there are times where a violent leader brought quick solutions to complicated situation benefiting a huge majority. And reading one of your first posts on this thread you think that Hitler would have been one of those if he hadn´t started his maniac competition with a bear in the east. But I disagree. A country like the German Reich that he was imagining would only have been stable under violence since it was born through violence. There are many examples of great conquerors - the Hun, the Mongol, the Khmer (well they were small in comparison but I just read about them ), the Romans, the Inca... - they all formed empires that spread almost to the ends of the known world. But they were all bound to crumble on the first sight of weakness. Violence is sometimes the only way to defend values but used to achieve something like brilliance. I can´t think of an example where that happened. Every achievement made reflects the means that were used to reach it. And a unity of countries formed under violence are always bound to bleed.

-Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
-It makes no difference as the water is dirty

I should start by saying that my final sentence a bit too simple. On the rock example I would say that if the destination of two choices is mostly the same, time of arrival is mostly the same and you mostly maintain both physical and psychological status quo on the journey compared to the other choice, the routes become indifferent. The amount of people one includes in the status quo condition is purely personal and varies greatly between inviduals. Of course in real life these conditions rarely apply and we have no guarantee of result thus we have to chooce which way to go and hope it takes us to where we want. Our inability to fully understand phenomenas plays the key part in keeping us from getting where we think we are headed.

I never claimed that rule under Hitler would have been better than rule under Stalin. I merely expressed the possibility that it could have been a better choice as I was opposing the words "pure evil". Our current nations are founded on top of violence - as keeping larger communities together always involves the use of force and control - which shows that problems can be dealt with violence. Genocide is usually an inefficient (though fast) way for settling things and causes too much international attention. More efficient (though more time consuming) way of reducing tensions are forced relocation combined with cultural assimilation which have been recently used by for example Russia, Israel, China and Turkey. Baltic countries were close from disappearing completely over time and Kaliningrad is now purely Russian. Israelis in west bank have far higher population growth and limit Palestinians to reservates much similiar to indians. Tibet will never be independent again as most parts have Chinese majority now. Kurds, although a large group, are assimilating faster than segregating. If Hitler would have been intelligent (which I doubt considering his bad military decisions) he could have created a giant blob similiar to Russia with mostly one culture, one language and one religion increasing the stability of the region enormously thus lowering the amount of bloodshed over time. I would change your sentence to "Unity of countries that have different cultures (including language and religion) are always bound to bleed as long as there are major differences".

 

[Akasha666]

-Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
-It makes no difference as the water is dirty

I should start by saying that my final sentence a bit too simple. On the rock example I would say that if the destination of two choices is mostly the same, time of arrival is mostly the same and you mostly maintain both physical and psychological status quo on the journey compared to the other choice, the routes become indifferent. The amount of people one includes in the status quo condition is purely personal and varies greatly between inviduals. Of course in real life these conditions rarely apply and we have no guarantee of result thus we have to chooce which way to go and hope it takes us to where we want. Our inability to fully understand phenomenas plays the key part in keeping us from getting where we think we are headed.

I never claimed that rule under Hitler would have been better than rule under Stalin. I merely expressed the possibility that it could have been a better choice as I was opposing the words "pure evil". Our current nations are founded on top of violence - as keeping larger communities together always involves the use of force and control - which shows that problems can be dealt with violence. Genocide is usually an inefficient (though fast) way for settling things and causes too much international attention. More efficient (though more time consuming) way of reducing tensions are forced relocation combined with cultural assimilation which have been recently used by for example Russia, Israel, China and Turkey. Baltic countries were close from disappearing completely over time and Kaliningrad is now purely Russian. Israelis in west bank have far higher population growth and limit Palestinians to reservates much similiar to indians. Tibet will never be independent again as most parts have Chinese majority now. Kurds, although a large group, are assimilating faster than segregating. If Hitler would have been intelligent (which I doubt considering his bad military decisions) he could have created a giant blob similiar to Russia with mostly one culture, one language and one religion increasing the stability of the region enormously thus lowering the amount of bloodshed over time. I would change your sentence to "Unity of countries that have different cultures (including language and religion) are always bound to bleed as long as there are major differences".

I always preferred the reply that it is just the glass that has the wrong size for this amount of water. Though, I did not yet think that all the way through and am not sure what it implies psychologically

I think we are on the same branch with the rock model. Though, I still try to hold on to that all those unforeseen consequences caused by our limit grasp on reality will cause you to change your status quo. And even when left turn and right turn seem indifferent - they will ask different sacrifices from you, giving your goal a different flavor once you reach it. But I am on your side when you want to abandon terms like good and evil here ~ they don´t hold any meaning in a model like this.


I see ~ I misunderstood your intention then. You compared Hitler and Stalin to get rid of that ridiculous label that Hitler was the ultimate evil. It is true - if those lands had fallen under Hitlers instead of Stalins rule it wouldn´t have been worse - personal opinion - it would just have been different. And different is always better for a few.

Hmm yes, just as I said before - Violence is sometimes the quick .. even humane solution to a quarrel. But I disagree with you on your assessment of the situation in Israel and Tibet. I have never been to Israel / Palestine nor Tibet - Though, I had a chance to talk to Israelis as well as Palestinians on my travels. And your description sounds way to cold for me. What is happening there is an absurd form of slow-motion genocide and not a cultural assimilation. But that would be another Thread I presume.

In my eyes lies the problem - as well as its appeal - of a violent change in its swiftness. The people may tolerate a certain amount of change. But too much of it leads to resistance and chaos. Unity is a slow process that is mostly achieved through non-violent ways. If this was my thread I would close it with a the quote:

"Unity of countries that have different cultures (including language and religion) are always bound to bleed as long as there are major differences."

Well said



But firstly - this isn´t my thread and secondly - I believe that wasn´t even the topic

 

[Dubiousduke]

There is a large difference between a 'great' leader and a 'great' military leader.
Napoleon? great military leader. Until you step back and realize he put his country in a hole for upwards of 200 years and killed off 1/4 of his countrymen with needless fighting. he was exiled. TWICE.

Mahatma Ghandi? great leader. passive resistance mastermind, and led a country to unity. But the minute he would have to control an army, he'd fast himself to death.

There's two sides to every coin, and if you're lucky enough, you might get it to land on it's edge.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

To paraphrase Artemis Fowl: "If you win, you're a genius. If you lose, then you are insane. That is how history is written."

 

[Dudemeister]

What's all this crap about "Is evil in the eye of the beholder" ?
In certain cases some things can be seen as good or bad from different angles but there is no way this can be applied to Genocide, ie. The Holocaust. Something which was unquestionably evil.

 

[nathan-dts]

But there's quite enough of Hitler on the internet, don't you think?

That's what Godwin's law is for.

 

[Lord Of Cyberia]

Whenever someone points out to me "There is no true evil!" I point to the Khmer Rouge, the Nazi Party, the African Independence Wars (European Side), and people like Osama Bin Laden, and serial killers. While many of these people may be insane, somewhere, at some level, one man cheerfully tortures and murders innocents, goes home to his loving family who ask about his day at the Death Camp, goes to bed, and does it again tomorrow. I believe there IS evil. And now I must stop writing before I say something too cynical and depress myself.

 

[antipunt]

"true evil" is kind of like an extreme, which is why I don't believe in it. Kind of like 'true friendship' or 'true love' or 'true whatever'. It's all a bunch of idealistic, black and white type of thinking.

Because IF there was true evil, there would also be 'true good'. And I don't really believe in true good either.

Everything is in multiple shades of grey. People who do "good" only do so because it benefits themselves at that proper time/space/environment. People who do 'evil', do so for the same reason. Every human being just wants the bigger slice of the pie ^_^

@lord of cyberia: too late

 

[NonMagicPoet]

Yyyyyep. My boyfriend turns into something between Jesus and Satan while drunk. I'll prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04YQFygFH6U

 

[manicfoot]

Hitler's maid has recently talked about her experiences with Hitler and she called him a very polite and caring man. The maid before her had died suddenly of natural causes. On the annaversary (sp) of her death she overheard Hitler crying in his room. I found this to be pretty scary. We like to think of Hitler as a heartless bastard but the fact is that everyone has a human side to them.

 

[howard_hughes]

Hitler was a man once, but society has omitted the average and mundane of his life and replaced him as a new Satan. If he wasn't 100% evil before he certainly is now and that popular opinion will mean that he's acquired a sense of immortality, a dark figurehead for the down trodden who turn to his ideals out of desperation or fear. By admitting that he was a man and that all men could become a Hitler or a Jesus we'd all do much better as a society.