|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Anything Evil? Does Evil Exist? | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Can we agree that evil is simply the lack of empathy? Suppose somebody did have empathy, but he performed "evil acts" anyway. Wouldn't that be even "more evil"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Ah, but then did he really empathize with his victims? Ah, but isn't that the "No True Empathy" fallacy? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: ... but then again true empathy is one of those things where I'd have to say that I know it when I see it kinda thing. I have no doubt that the average Nazi-in-the-street did have empathy for his victims. He did believe he was doing what was right in spite of his feelings of empathy. The person who is empathy-challenged is "less evil", in my view, because he doesn't feel the results of his acts. A Nazi, who is "only following orders" against his own conscience, is "more evil". The person who "does evil" because he knows it hurts his victim is "most evil". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: It is only the motivation of the individual that exposes the objective evil. If motivations can not be observed objectively, how can they "expose objective evil"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: I think you meant, 'If motivations cannot be observed directly.' No. I meant what I said. Direct or indirect observation is irrelevant - it's only objectivity that counts. If you can't objectively observe motivations, you can't reach objective conclusions about them.
What are the motives of the perpetrator in the following cenario? I have no idea about his motivations, and neither do you. The fact that we both subjectively find his actions "evil" has nothing to do with his motivations. In fact, since we can not fathom any "reasonable" motivation for his actions, our observations become less objective. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Actually the less reasonable his actions, the more subjective his motivations. That's exactly what I said. You're the one who's claiming we can have objective knowledge of his motivations. The more subjective the motivations for "evil", the more subjective the "evil" itself. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: But to say that the person might not have known better himself is absurd. It was a premeditated action. How can you know it was "premeditated" if you can't fathom the motivation? And how does "premeditated" reconcile with lack of reason? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: There is nothing reasonable about that attitude.... You didn't answer the questions. I asked you how a person can premeditate without using reason. I'm suggesting that an act is either premeditiated or unreasonable - but not both. And I asked how you can conclude premeditation if you can't understand the reasoning behind it. I'm suggesting that your judgement of "premeditation" and "reasonableness" is based on your subjective notions and have nothing to do with the person you are judging. Edited by Ringo, : Spelling. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: They simply decide to reject reason because they can! How can a person "decide" to reject reason without using reason? Isn't decision-making a reasoning process? And you still still haven't answered the other question: How can you determine somebody else's motivations if you don't understand the reasoning behind them? And especially if you claim there is no reasoning behind them? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: The fact that there is no reason is itself the proof of ill motive. What I'm asking is: How can there be "motive" at all if there is no reason? What is motive if not reason?
Good motives have good reasoning or 'sound' reasoning. It doesn't follow from that that "bad" motives have no reasoning. It seems more reasonable to conclude that "bad" motives have "bad" reasoning.
Reason is by definition sound and good. Not by any reasonable definition.
Some descisions are simply motivated by natural impulses. The "motivation" for a decision is not the issue here. You haven't shown yet that you can know anything about somebody else's motivations. You claimed that "evil" results from a "decision" to reject reason. You haven't shown that that kind of decision comes from a "natural impulse". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: There is no such thing as non-reason. That's just an empty assertion that doesn't address the issue. I have said that there can be "bad" reasoning behind "bad" deeds. You have claimed that "bad" deeds are caused by deciding to reject reason. How does "rejecting reason" work if there is no such thing as non-reason? Rejecting reason goes from reason to where?
Your motive is purely 'feeling' rather than thought. I have asked you before and you still still still haven't answered: How can you know my motives? Or anybody else's motives? Especially, how can you reason what my motives are if you claim my motives are not based on reason? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: There would be no ability to prove motives at all. Of course, there is no ability to "prove" motives at all. Judges and juries can only guess at motives. A prosecutor will suggest a plausible motive, if he wants to convince the jury that the crime was premeditated. But there would be no need for juries if motives could be "proven". What juries do is try to understand the mental processes of the accused in terms of their own mental processes. That is reasoning, by necessity. As I have said, and you still still still still have not addressed: The "evildoer's" actions are reasoned, or there would be no basis for the jury to guess what his motivations were. Your claim of "lack of reason" just doesn't work. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024