Why is it wrong for us to judge people/governments that have done evil things?
- Thread starter NY Hoya
- Start date
Xiahou-Dun
Retired Super Hero
LMFAO
Does this mean any before 1990 doesn't matter?
As I asked has the government of China been overthrown or had a revolution since 1989?
I believe the answer is no. The same government that BEFORE 1990 has killed millions of it's own people. Ever hear of the Culture Revolution?
The same government who will throw it's own people in jail for having an opinion different from the governments. Insurrection
And people wonder why the chinese people don't voice their opinion. An opinion can/most likely lead to a trip to the reeducating camp. I give the chinese enough credit to know speaking out against their government will lead to bad things for them and their families.Of course I agree that it's wrong to send these people to jail.
I ask for recent history cases as Tinamien changed everything for the Chinese governent. The government does not continue to massacre people, contrary to the belief of several posting in this forum. Obviously this does not take away what they did in the past. Nor are they a nice government now.
I ask for recent history cases as Tinamien changed everything for the Chinese governent. The government does not continue to massacre people, contrary to the belief of several posting in this forum. Obviously this does not take away what they did in the past. Nor are they a nice government now.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
The Cultural Revolution was a product of Mao Zedong.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Sure it is relativism. But my point is that 'evil' is a description that shows alot of ignorance towards the situation as a whole. Or as Sean Lindstrom put it:
But the point I was trying to make with the statment you quoted above was that usually those who happily call people and peoples evil are the first to scream about it if someone else does the same with them or their people.
And isn't it more or less trolling? Calling something the evil whatever is bascially calling for a flame war. Except for a certain evil dictatorship of course...
Hitro wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Hitro wrote:
So you would also think it's okay if someone calls the United States (or their government) evil?
Pure relativism. Is the Belgian government evil because it has a legal system that lets terrorists and child predaters slip through easily, or is it a basically fair government that needs a few targeted reforms? I think the latter. Is the British goverment evil for suggesting today they would restrict trial-by-jury, or is it a good democratic government just proposing what is propbably just a bad idea? It's not a matter of simply calling everyone with whom you disagree evil, it's a matter of saying that there is certain behavioral criterion that we're going to hold governments accountable for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it is relativism. But my point is that 'evil' is a description that shows alot of ignorance towards the situation as a whole. Or as Sean Lindstrom put it:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Good & Evil. These words are used by parents to children, and are nearly meaningless between adults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my point though, that I am against relativism. The above quote is relativistic; its author believes that mitigating circumstances make it impossible to call anyone or any action evil. I disagree. I don't care whether Hitler had a bad childhood or Timothy McVeigh had mental issues that made him susceptible to paranoid fantasies; their actions were evil and if I'd had an opportunity to stop or thwart them, I believe it would have been my duty as a free citizen to do so.
By my calling Hitler or McVeigh evil does not mean that their every step, their every action on this planet was demonic, rather that the import of their actions required that many innocent people die - in McVeigh's case hundreds, in Hitler's millions. That's evil in my book and should be in yours. Can you imagine any reason that could justify the Holocaust or the bombing of a public building packed with innocent civilians, including a day care center for children McVeigh was aware of? Does it matter what their motives were? Is there any mitigating circumstance of their lives or conditions that could make the deaths they caused seem less important, less morally valid?
But the point I was trying to make with the statment you quoted above was that usually those who happily call people and peoples evil are the first to scream about it if someone else does the same with them or their people.
A point in my post was that intelligent people should be able to distinguish truly evil regimes and actions from ones they simply disagree with. I mentioned that some people have a habit of calling everything and everyone who does not agree with them "evil", but I think most people understand that they are simply partisan and biased. For instance I disagree with many of Mbeki's policies in South Africa but I recognize that he is a democratically-elected leader in free elections and the system of government he works under is basically a fair and equitable system for its citizens. The current regime in Zimbabwe, however, is devolving into a dictatorship that is increasingly using demogoguery, mob violence, imprisonment and murder to maintain its power. Surely you can see the difference between the two regimes? Relativism would claim there is no real difference between any two systems or actions, that a government with a few corrupt police officials who commit murder but are caught and publically tried is on the same moral level as a regime that regularly uses murder as a political tool. Having lived under a regime of the latter kind and living currently under a regime of the former kind, I say there is a difference; it is not relative.
And isn't it more or less trolling? Calling something the evil whatever is bascially calling for a flame war. Except for a certain evil dictatorship of course...
I'm not sure exactly what "trolling" means though I've seen this term tossed around in these forums a few times, so I'll need some enlightenment on that score. Hitro you and I have been writing for a while in these forums, and have you ever known me to get involved or try to provoke flame wars? I've had some heated exchanges with some folks hereabouts but they rarely descended to a level of personal recriminations.
I won't shy away from using the word "evil" because some people might be shocked or embarrassed by it. A government who intentionally and systemmatically kills its citizens should be called evil. The aim of calling such a regime evil is to hold their actions and behavior up to public scrutiny, to take the first step in changing their behavior or getting them out of power. My condemnation of Milosevic's regime as evil was not a reflection of any hatred for the Serbian people, any more than my condemnation of the Polish communist regime was any sign of a self-hatred for the Polish nation on my part. I say loudly that Hitler's Nazi regime was evil, but modern Germany is a paragon of democracy and hope for many in the world. No government, no person is morally perfect but clearly there is a difference between the blights of a democratic regime and those of a dictatorship bent on maintaining its power? We, you and I, live rather comfortably in societies where our rights are guaranted. Do we not owe it to those who live in societies where their governments, or aspects of their societies deny their rights, in some cases to the extent that they face possible murder?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Hitro wrote:
So you would also think it's okay if someone calls the United States (or their government) evil?
Pure relativism. Is the Belgian government evil because it has a legal system that lets terrorists and child predaters slip through easily, or is it a basically fair government that needs a few targeted reforms? I think the latter. Is the British goverment evil for suggesting today they would restrict trial-by-jury, or is it a good democratic government just proposing what is propbably just a bad idea? It's not a matter of simply calling everyone with whom you disagree evil, it's a matter of saying that there is certain behavioral criterion that we're going to hold governments accountable for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it is relativism. But my point is that 'evil' is a description that shows alot of ignorance towards the situation as a whole. Or as Sean Lindstrom put it:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Good & Evil. These words are used by parents to children, and are nearly meaningless between adults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my point though, that I am against relativism. The above quote is relativistic; its author believes that mitigating circumstances make it impossible to call anyone or any action evil. I disagree. I don't care whether Hitler had a bad childhood or Timothy McVeigh had mental issues that made him susceptible to paranoid fantasies; their actions were evil and if I'd had an opportunity to stop or thwart them, I believe it would have been my duty as a free citizen to do so.
By my calling Hitler or McVeigh evil does not mean that their every step, their every action on this planet was demonic, rather that the import of their actions required that many innocent people die - in McVeigh's case hundreds, in Hitler's millions. That's evil in my book and should be in yours. Can you imagine any reason that could justify the Holocaust or the bombing of a public building packed with innocent civilians, including a day care center for children McVeigh was aware of? Does it matter what their motives were? Is there any mitigating circumstance of their lives or conditions that could make the deaths they caused seem less important, less morally valid?
But the point I was trying to make with the statment you quoted above was that usually those who happily call people and peoples evil are the first to scream about it if someone else does the same with them or their people.
A point in my post was that intelligent people should be able to distinguish truly evil regimes and actions from ones they simply disagree with. I mentioned that some people have a habit of calling everything and everyone who does not agree with them "evil", but I think most people understand that they are simply partisan and biased. For instance I disagree with many of Mbeki's policies in South Africa but I recognize that he is a democratically-elected leader in free elections and the system of government he works under is basically a fair and equitable system for its citizens. The current regime in Zimbabwe, however, is devolving into a dictatorship that is increasingly using demogoguery, mob violence, imprisonment and murder to maintain its power. Surely you can see the difference between the two regimes? Relativism would claim there is no real difference between any two systems or actions, that a government with a few corrupt police officials who commit murder but are caught and publically tried is on the same moral level as a regime that regularly uses murder as a political tool. Having lived under a regime of the latter kind and living currently under a regime of the former kind, I say there is a difference; it is not relative.
And isn't it more or less trolling? Calling something the evil whatever is bascially calling for a flame war. Except for a certain evil dictatorship of course...
I'm not sure exactly what "trolling" means though I've seen this term tossed around in these forums a few times, so I'll need some enlightenment on that score. Hitro you and I have been writing for a while in these forums, and have you ever known me to get involved or try to provoke flame wars? I've had some heated exchanges with some folks hereabouts but they rarely descended to a level of personal recriminations.
I won't shy away from using the word "evil" because some people might be shocked or embarrassed by it. A government who intentionally and systemmatically kills its citizens should be called evil. The aim of calling such a regime evil is to hold their actions and behavior up to public scrutiny, to take the first step in changing their behavior or getting them out of power. My condemnation of Milosevic's regime as evil was not a reflection of any hatred for the Serbian people, any more than my condemnation of the Polish communist regime was any sign of a self-hatred for the Polish nation on my part. I say loudly that Hitler's Nazi regime was evil, but modern Germany is a paragon of democracy and hope for many in the world. No government, no person is morally perfect but clearly there is a difference between the blights of a democratic regime and those of a dictatorship bent on maintaining its power? We, you and I, live rather comfortably in societies where our rights are guaranted. Do we not owe it to those who live in societies where their governments, or aspects of their societies deny their rights, in some cases to the extent that they face possible murder?
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
By calling one side evil you give the impression the other side is good.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
While I agree that making no distinctions between different actions and different people (therefore pure relativism) is wrong, I think there is a big difference between calling a person evil and an action evil.
You may call the Holocaust evil and it would be hard to argument against it. You may call killing evil, but then you would soon have alot of people saying that there are circumstances where it is right to kill. And if it is right how can it be evil?
Most would agree that bombing a house full of more or less innocent people (like in Oklahoma City) is utterly wrong or evil. So calling that an evil action is one thing, but does it make Timothy McVeigh as a whole evil?
I think that is evasive thinking. It does matter what their (McVeigh's and/or Hitler's) movites were. You can say it shouldn't matter when it comes to punishing them, and I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, because the actions they did are wrong beyond doubt (for me). But I think it is very dangerous to brand them as evil and go over it. Note: I don't think you, Vrylakas, personally do so, but most people do.
Evil is, and there comes that children thing into play, something plain and simple, people (for example in fairy tales) simply are evil, while others are good. That is a childish way of thinking, reality is different. Nobody is pure evil as nobody is pure good. Now that doesn't mean that nobody can be better than another, I would not hesitate to call you better than Hitler, but still I won't say you are good or Hitler is evil. The danger in it is that people brand individuals like Hitler, McVeigh or Bin Laden as evil and explain their actions with it. "They did it because they are evil" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, as it evades confrontation with the problems behind such actions. If there is a reason behind it, or a certain upbringing, it is important to investigate it so that it can be prevented from happening again. Just blaming it on some supernatural evil force is not helpful.
However, so far for my explanation on why I personally wouldn't seriously (but of course semi-seriously) use "good" and "evil" on individuals. What I was picking at in my first post in this thread was that some of those who use it (and again, that doesn't Vrylakas) show a big hypocrisy about it. Those who shout at people for calling America evil or calling Christianity evil have no problem with the use of evil in general, they are the first to use it on their 'enemies'. What is evil or good depends on the viewpoint of the one who uses it, it is relative in that sense.
So calling someone PC and assuming they are "liberal" is not PC? Oh God where will end.Originally posted by Baleog
Yes, bravo. There is a general belief in this forum (and probably the outside world) that PC = liberal. I'm sick of it, and I've mentioned it on many a thread when simeone said pc = liberal. I'm liberal, but am horrified to be called pc. Maybe there's an argument that most pc people are liberal, but I'm not sure it'd hold that most liberals are pc.
Generalizations, such as Arabs are Muslims and don't like the United States, is how people pigeonhole topics and other cultures so we can get our arms around the subject and basically deal with a very confusing world where truth lies somewhere in-between and nothing is absolute. To meet someone for the first time and not giving them a chance based on our "views", or to think stereotypes are always the truth, is where it get dangerous. But the free flow of views and ideas, sometimes not PC, is critical to any Republic out there and something our enemies in the world, do not allow. So condemn Racist acts but do not scorn those that have ideas or beliefs that are different than yours, unless they're totally silly.
I long for the days where saying "PC" meant Personal Computer but alas it is not meant to be.
~Matthew
Originally posted by BeerCur
So calling someone PC and assuming they are "liberal" is not PC? Oh God where will end.
Generalizations, such as Arabs are Muslims and don't like the United States, is how people pigeonhole topics and other cultures so we can get our arms around the subject and basically deal with a very confusing world where truth lies somewhere in-between and nothing is absolute. To meet someone for the first time and not giving them a chance based on our "views", or to think stereotypes are always the truth, is where it get dangerous. But the free flow of views and ideas, sometimes not PC, is critical to any Republic out there and something our enemies in the world, do not allow. So condemn Racist acts but do not scorn those that have ideas or beliefs that are different than yours, unless they're totally silly.
I long for the days where saying "PC" meant Personal Computer but alas it is not meant to be.
~Matthew
The problem BeerCur is that people refute the liberal point of view by labelling just about anything a liberal person may say as being politically correct. That term has negative connotations as it is perceived to be contrary to free speech.
To refute racist statements is not being "PC", it is a retort to a short sighted point of view. To do so is quite pragmatic.
In literal terms, Politically Correct ultimately means the mode of speech whcih would keep the speaker from digging themselves into a hole whilst in a political discussion.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Exactly, anti-pc is not better than pc itself. I won't change my opinion on an issue just because it happens to be politically correct as well as I wouldn't change it because it's not.
Granted, you should not change your point of view because someone tags it as PC, liberal, rightwing, leftwing, or chickenwing. But it's important to listen, be open minded, and be willing to change. And if someone is wrong, IYO, be ready to debate the issue without resorting to empty cliche arguments such as facist, racist, or <insert epithet here>.
Hitro you have been good about this so I'm not picking on you. Just making a general statement.,
~Matthew
edit: spelling
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
There's nothing wrong with that statement, but I think both things do not exclude each other. While I don't let myself be influenced by characterizations like "politically correct" I can still be open for influence through valid argumentation.
In fact what you said (the second part) is more or less what I meant earlier, just insert "evil" there.
Empty cliche argument is a good description for it.
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
Judging people based on their previous actions is called judging, judging based on their race is called pre-judging or prejudice. Completely different. Saying that Terrorists should be strung up may be barbaric (although I can't disagree with the idea), but it is NOT racist or prejudice in any way - it's called paying the consequences of your ill-conceived actions. This is very different than calling someone out based on race/genetics alone. Knowingly associating with terrorists should also be punished strongly (assuming pre-knowledge of terrorist actions), but just being a neighbor, co-worker, friend, or relative is not grounds to associate - although in-depth research on those is very appropriate. An unfortunate side-effect of casually knowing criminals; life can be unfair.
Saying that all Chinese people/people of Chinese heritage are evil would be silly (I haven't seen anyone here do that), but saying that the Chinese government is evil based on their past actions would be acceptable (but probably hard to prove). Saying they're have been no evil actions, evil people, or evil governments makes no sense to me.
On the PC topic - it does have it's place. Personally, I like my work environment (or education environment) to be relatively free of debate on outside issues - it's just distracting from the common goal at hand. After hours/in private, have a party. The US allows for freedom of gathering, and freedom of speech, for good reason. As long as laws are not broken (except for willing civil disobedience to change the law), and others are not harmed (regardless of the reason behind the action).
One more thing about China. Events like The Cultural Revolution and The Great Leap Foward have been criticize in this country. Anybody have seen movie like To Live and Farewell, My Concubine? These movie critics these event and have been produced in Mainland China. The main actress, Gong Li, has now a envious position in the governement.
ZultanofZex
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,031
and the we have...
Give up this discussion, you guys aint even on the same planet!
Hitro wrote:
While I agree that making no distinctions between different actions and different people (therefore pure relativism) is wrong, I think there is a big difference between calling a person evil and an action evil.
It's more a matter of when, really. I'll explain below.
You may call the Holocaust evil and it would be hard to argument against it. You may call killing evil, but then you would soon have alot of people saying that there are circumstances where it is right to kill. And if it is right how can it be evil?
Most would agree that bombing a house full of more or less innocent people (like in Oklahoma City) is utterly wrong or evil. So calling that an evil action is one thing, but does it make Timothy McVeigh as a whole evil?
Maybe Tim McVeigh gave money to a homeless woman every day on his way to the library to look up bomb-making techniques. Maybe Hitler was nothing but kind to his beloved dog. Maybe Stalin doted on his daughter. Maybe Idi Amin secretly wrote cute poetry to a lover. These are all matters for historians to sort out, and I agree with you that no human or country is ever completely without some sort of redeeming aspects. However, when they are in the midst of committing their evil acts, when they are killing or destroying, there is only one thing that should be on your mind: stopping them. At that point, when they were inflicting their harm, they were an evil, they embodied an evil. Milosevic today is harmless, a dethroned dictator and thug pacing his cell in the Hague and giving operatic performances at his trial. His current pathetic predicament should not shield the fact that at one point he committed evil acts, and those acts would likely not have happened without him. My basic motive in labelinga person or regime evil is getting them to stop their killing or oppression, because at that moment they are evil.
I think that is evasive thinking. It does matter what their (McVeigh's and/or Hitler's) movites were.
Why? I would certainly agree, as a fellow aspiring historian, that it is paramount that we understand their motives but ultimately the act is the same. Is there a tangible difference between why a Polish university professor executed by the Gestapo in 1939 died, or a Cambodian student executed by the Khmer Rouge in 1975, a Shiite gassed to death by Hussein in 1985 or a Congo villager killed by Belgian troops in 1912? For us, the survivors, there certainly is but for the dead there is little issue; murder is murder. It is the same evil, repeated all over the globe. Yes, with different excuses each time but it is the same evil nonetheless, the same acts. I think Hitler sincerely believed in his theories about übermenschen and die Edwige Juden, but his crime is still murder - mass murder. It's up to the historians to sort out later why he did what he did, but while he was doing it is up to his contemporaries to condemn his acts and try to stop him. Calling a spade a spade is the first step in that process.
You can say it shouldn't matter when it comes to punishing them, and I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, because the actions they did are wrong beyond doubt (for me). But I think it is very dangerous to brand them as evil and go over it.
I'm not even getting to the punishment part. That's why we have legal systems to sort that part out, so we don't resort to mob justice. As I mentioned in my initial post there is a difference between the people or entities when they're committing the acts and when they're not. Committing a crime - any crime - does not make anyone eternally evil. Most religions make that clear by emphasizing redemption. But while you are committing an evil act you are an embodiment of that evil.
Note: I don't think you, Vrylakas, personally do so, but most people do.
I'm not taking this personally Hitro, and I hope you aren't. I've known you enough around these forums and know your intelligent and well-informed arguments, and fully respect your view.
My basic problem with relativism is its refusal to evaluate the world, like holding one's hands over one's eyes in the classic "see/hear no evil" position. It is true that there are people who see the world in sheer terms of black and white, but it is no less blind to ignore extremes and pretend the world is a uniform shade of grey. The extremes do exist, and when they rear up and people start getting killed I think they need to be identified and dealt with.
Evil is, and there comes that children thing into play, something plain and simple, people (for example in fairy tales) simply are evil, while others are good. That is a childish way of thinking, reality is different. Nobody is pure evil as nobody is pure good. Now that doesn't mean that nobody can be better than another, I would not hesitate to call you better than Hitler, but still I won't say you are good or Hitler is evil. The danger in it is that people brand individuals like Hitler, McVeigh or Bin Laden as evil and explain their actions with it. "They did it because they are evil" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, as it evades confrontation with the problems behind such actions. If there is a reason behind it, or a certain upbringing, it is important to investigate it so that it can be prevented from happening again. Just blaming it on some supernatural evil force is not helpful.
I'm not going to argue whether I'm good, but please do tell me you can tell the difference between someone like myself who has never attempted a Holocaust and Hitler, who has. There is a difference, and all human languages have a word to describe it: in German - böse; in Polish - nieszczesny, in Hungarian - gonosz, Latin - malusaum; in English - evil.
I'm not ascribing Hitler's or McVeigh's motives to evil, as I made clear initially that I was not talking at all about motives. Surely by reading my posts in other threads, especially in the history forum, you wouldn't accuse me of being childish in my reasoning. Again, it is the job of the historian and the police investigators after a criminal event to develop a sophisticated understanding of the motives behind the acts so, as you say, "it never happens again"; but while the acts are being committed - while the crime is still in progress - nobody is concerned about the killers' bitter childhoods. If I were standing next to Gavrilo Princip in the crowd when he started shooting, I am not going to tap him on the shoulder and ask how he feels about his mother or whether he thinks his schooling was responsible for this; I'm going to try to tackle him. At that moment he represents a great human evil, and I'm going to react by trying to stop him if possible.
In the late 1980s I was detained for a while at a local crossing on the Hungarian-Czechoslovak border at Agtelek, near what was then the Soviet border. Poles were considered troublemakers so I spent a few hours locked in a small windowless room being screamed at in a language I didn't yet understand (Hungarian) by a local communist official. The incident is actually funny because I was terrified for a while but after some time I realized they just didn't know what to do with me so they were screaming at me just to be able to tell Budapest they were doing something. Guns were waved at me, there was lots of shouting, and in the end they gave me ridiculous bureaucratic instructions in broken German that I ignored and everyone was happy as I was allowed to leave. The gist though is that they were a part of an evil system, and while they were "just doing their jobs" they did represent an evil that oppressed a people. You'll recall that the Nuremburg trials rejected the "just doing my job" defense. If I met the guy who carried out my "interrogation" today I would probably buy him a drink and we'd laugh over it - that's Eastern Europe for you. But I think it is important to put a value on behavior, to recognize both positive and negative behavior. Murderous behavior needs to be called evil.
However, so far for my explanation on why I personally wouldn't seriously (but of course semi-seriously) use "good" and "evil" on individuals. What I was picking at in my first post in this thread was that some of those who use it (and again, that doesn't Vrylakas) show a big hypocrisy about it. Those who shout at people for calling America evil or calling Christianity evil have no problem with the use of evil in general, they are the first to use it on their 'enemies'. What is evil or good depends on the viewpoint of the one who uses it, it is relative in that sense.
And we agree on this point, that some people have a tendency to call anyone or anything they don't like or agree with "evil"; they see everyone through the primitive "Us and Them" mentality. But I don't think their inability to see the world in anything but the most superficial terms should stop us from calling murderous behavior evil. We shouldn't let the discussion be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
Sysyphus wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
So if I understand this correctly, you would rather people who disagree with you not be allowed to vote? Quite convenient indeed (for you), if anti-democratic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm actually pro-democracy. It's the only way to keep governmetns in check.
However, I do believe that with rights come responsibilities.
We have the right to vote, with that we have the responsibility to look at the big picture and not our own little world. My rant was directed at the closed-mindedness of some. If democracy is to work, a closed mind is a terrible thing.
I agree that citizenship entails responsibilities, but democracy requires fullest participation of the electorate, including those whom you consider "closed-minded". If democracies start disenfranchising the "closed-minded", then someone will have to define exactly what constitutes closed-mindedness, and the process of exclusion begins. Can you or I be assured that either one of us won't fall into someone else's definition of closed-mindedness? Democracies exist to embody the reality that all societies have a plethora of differing views within them, and a democratic society is supposed to be able to allow everyone the fullest verbal expression of those views no matter how extreme or how narrow their motives. I understand you were just ranting, but my point is that a democracy that begins excluding some from its processes ceases to be a democracy.
While I agree that making no distinctions between different actions and different people (therefore pure relativism) is wrong, I think there is a big difference between calling a person evil and an action evil.
It's more a matter of when, really. I'll explain below.
You may call the Holocaust evil and it would be hard to argument against it. You may call killing evil, but then you would soon have alot of people saying that there are circumstances where it is right to kill. And if it is right how can it be evil?
Most would agree that bombing a house full of more or less innocent people (like in Oklahoma City) is utterly wrong or evil. So calling that an evil action is one thing, but does it make Timothy McVeigh as a whole evil?
Maybe Tim McVeigh gave money to a homeless woman every day on his way to the library to look up bomb-making techniques. Maybe Hitler was nothing but kind to his beloved dog. Maybe Stalin doted on his daughter. Maybe Idi Amin secretly wrote cute poetry to a lover. These are all matters for historians to sort out, and I agree with you that no human or country is ever completely without some sort of redeeming aspects. However, when they are in the midst of committing their evil acts, when they are killing or destroying, there is only one thing that should be on your mind: stopping them. At that point, when they were inflicting their harm, they were an evil, they embodied an evil. Milosevic today is harmless, a dethroned dictator and thug pacing his cell in the Hague and giving operatic performances at his trial. His current pathetic predicament should not shield the fact that at one point he committed evil acts, and those acts would likely not have happened without him. My basic motive in labelinga person or regime evil is getting them to stop their killing or oppression, because at that moment they are evil.
I think that is evasive thinking. It does matter what their (McVeigh's and/or Hitler's) movites were.
Why? I would certainly agree, as a fellow aspiring historian, that it is paramount that we understand their motives but ultimately the act is the same. Is there a tangible difference between why a Polish university professor executed by the Gestapo in 1939 died, or a Cambodian student executed by the Khmer Rouge in 1975, a Shiite gassed to death by Hussein in 1985 or a Congo villager killed by Belgian troops in 1912? For us, the survivors, there certainly is but for the dead there is little issue; murder is murder. It is the same evil, repeated all over the globe. Yes, with different excuses each time but it is the same evil nonetheless, the same acts. I think Hitler sincerely believed in his theories about übermenschen and die Edwige Juden, but his crime is still murder - mass murder. It's up to the historians to sort out later why he did what he did, but while he was doing it is up to his contemporaries to condemn his acts and try to stop him. Calling a spade a spade is the first step in that process.
You can say it shouldn't matter when it comes to punishing them, and I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it, because the actions they did are wrong beyond doubt (for me). But I think it is very dangerous to brand them as evil and go over it.
I'm not even getting to the punishment part. That's why we have legal systems to sort that part out, so we don't resort to mob justice. As I mentioned in my initial post there is a difference between the people or entities when they're committing the acts and when they're not. Committing a crime - any crime - does not make anyone eternally evil. Most religions make that clear by emphasizing redemption. But while you are committing an evil act you are an embodiment of that evil.
Note: I don't think you, Vrylakas, personally do so, but most people do.
I'm not taking this personally Hitro, and I hope you aren't. I've known you enough around these forums and know your intelligent and well-informed arguments, and fully respect your view.
My basic problem with relativism is its refusal to evaluate the world, like holding one's hands over one's eyes in the classic "see/hear no evil" position. It is true that there are people who see the world in sheer terms of black and white, but it is no less blind to ignore extremes and pretend the world is a uniform shade of grey. The extremes do exist, and when they rear up and people start getting killed I think they need to be identified and dealt with.
Evil is, and there comes that children thing into play, something plain and simple, people (for example in fairy tales) simply are evil, while others are good. That is a childish way of thinking, reality is different. Nobody is pure evil as nobody is pure good. Now that doesn't mean that nobody can be better than another, I would not hesitate to call you better than Hitler, but still I won't say you are good or Hitler is evil. The danger in it is that people brand individuals like Hitler, McVeigh or Bin Laden as evil and explain their actions with it. "They did it because they are evil" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, as it evades confrontation with the problems behind such actions. If there is a reason behind it, or a certain upbringing, it is important to investigate it so that it can be prevented from happening again. Just blaming it on some supernatural evil force is not helpful.
I'm not going to argue whether I'm good, but please do tell me you can tell the difference between someone like myself who has never attempted a Holocaust and Hitler, who has. There is a difference, and all human languages have a word to describe it: in German - böse; in Polish - nieszczesny, in Hungarian - gonosz, Latin - malusaum; in English - evil.
I'm not ascribing Hitler's or McVeigh's motives to evil, as I made clear initially that I was not talking at all about motives. Surely by reading my posts in other threads, especially in the history forum, you wouldn't accuse me of being childish in my reasoning. Again, it is the job of the historian and the police investigators after a criminal event to develop a sophisticated understanding of the motives behind the acts so, as you say, "it never happens again"; but while the acts are being committed - while the crime is still in progress - nobody is concerned about the killers' bitter childhoods. If I were standing next to Gavrilo Princip in the crowd when he started shooting, I am not going to tap him on the shoulder and ask how he feels about his mother or whether he thinks his schooling was responsible for this; I'm going to try to tackle him. At that moment he represents a great human evil, and I'm going to react by trying to stop him if possible.
In the late 1980s I was detained for a while at a local crossing on the Hungarian-Czechoslovak border at Agtelek, near what was then the Soviet border. Poles were considered troublemakers so I spent a few hours locked in a small windowless room being screamed at in a language I didn't yet understand (Hungarian) by a local communist official. The incident is actually funny because I was terrified for a while but after some time I realized they just didn't know what to do with me so they were screaming at me just to be able to tell Budapest they were doing something. Guns were waved at me, there was lots of shouting, and in the end they gave me ridiculous bureaucratic instructions in broken German that I ignored and everyone was happy as I was allowed to leave. The gist though is that they were a part of an evil system, and while they were "just doing their jobs" they did represent an evil that oppressed a people. You'll recall that the Nuremburg trials rejected the "just doing my job" defense. If I met the guy who carried out my "interrogation" today I would probably buy him a drink and we'd laugh over it - that's Eastern Europe for you. But I think it is important to put a value on behavior, to recognize both positive and negative behavior. Murderous behavior needs to be called evil.
However, so far for my explanation on why I personally wouldn't seriously (but of course semi-seriously) use "good" and "evil" on individuals. What I was picking at in my first post in this thread was that some of those who use it (and again, that doesn't Vrylakas) show a big hypocrisy about it. Those who shout at people for calling America evil or calling Christianity evil have no problem with the use of evil in general, they are the first to use it on their 'enemies'. What is evil or good depends on the viewpoint of the one who uses it, it is relative in that sense.
And we agree on this point, that some people have a tendency to call anyone or anything they don't like or agree with "evil"; they see everyone through the primitive "Us and Them" mentality. But I don't think their inability to see the world in anything but the most superficial terms should stop us from calling murderous behavior evil. We shouldn't let the discussion be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
Sysyphus wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
So if I understand this correctly, you would rather people who disagree with you not be allowed to vote? Quite convenient indeed (for you), if anti-democratic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm actually pro-democracy. It's the only way to keep governmetns in check.
However, I do believe that with rights come responsibilities.
We have the right to vote, with that we have the responsibility to look at the big picture and not our own little world. My rant was directed at the closed-mindedness of some. If democracy is to work, a closed mind is a terrible thing.
I agree that citizenship entails responsibilities, but democracy requires fullest participation of the electorate, including those whom you consider "closed-minded". If democracies start disenfranchising the "closed-minded", then someone will have to define exactly what constitutes closed-mindedness, and the process of exclusion begins. Can you or I be assured that either one of us won't fall into someone else's definition of closed-mindedness? Democracies exist to embody the reality that all societies have a plethora of differing views within them, and a democratic society is supposed to be able to allow everyone the fullest verbal expression of those views no matter how extreme or how narrow their motives. I understand you were just ranting, but my point is that a democracy that begins excluding some from its processes ceases to be a democracy.
ozscott75
Groper of Sand
Getting back to the original question, I think the problem people had with starlifter's graphic description of his treatment of terrorists was that it was dehumanising. Posts on these fora should be free of hateful references to other humans, regardless of race, creed, sex or religion. Would anyone have accepted the post if jew or black or gay or dutch was substituted for terrorist?
Calling a government evil or wrong or nasty or whatever doesn't (shouldn't) cause the same offense, but it is seldom a useful argument.
Mr Sharpe, you do realise that the Chinese (and others) view the US as 'warmongering imperialists bent on the cultural assimilation of the world.'
Blind rhetoric does nothing to further this discussion.
