Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,593 - 5,604 of 6,170
sick bastard who can get things done Hitler made the trains run on time, but it was a terrible price to pay. The Machiavellian idea that people will respect you is true, but I will take mediocrity over evil any time. If you look at most leaders you will find they were mediocre. Yet somehow the general population was able to have a good life under their rule. It was the evil ones that made life a living hell.
Posts 5,593 - 5,604 of 6,170
Bev writes:
And what role does intent and outcome play in the analysis?
It seems to me that intent is necessary for an action to be evil.
IMHO, many people place too much emphasis on outcome. Let's say two people, A and B, drive home in equal states of drunkenness. It happens that a child darts into the road in front of A, and because A is intoxicated, he fails to swerve or stop, and the child is killed. B, on the other hand, gets home without killing anyone, just by luck. Legally speaking, A has committed a much more severe crime than B, but morally speaking, I consider them to have done exactly the same (I'm assuming that when they get into their cars, the probability that A will kill someone on the way home is the same as the probability that B will kill someone on the way home). They both took a chance on having an accident. B was lucky, which is morally irrelevant.
It seems to me that intent is necessary for an action to be evil.
IMHO, many people place too much emphasis on outcome. Let's say two people, A and B, drive home in equal states of drunkenness. It happens that a child darts into the road in front of A, and because A is intoxicated, he fails to swerve or stop, and the child is killed. B, on the other hand, gets home without killing anyone, just by luck. Legally speaking, A has committed a much more severe crime than B, but morally speaking, I consider them to have done exactly the same (I'm assuming that when they get into their cars, the probability that A will kill someone on the way home is the same as the probability that B will kill someone on the way home). They both took a chance on having an accident. B was lucky, which is morally irrelevant.
But the average Joe sucks. That's the point -- you want to behave better, have more charity towards others, etc., than the average Joe. The average Joe situation is what we have on our hands here. Is that guy in the White House anything but an average Joe with power and puppeteers?
None of us are the average Joe! Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average and all the men are good looking! As I look down on the "little" people, I think "Why must everybody but me suck so much?" (I was making fun of myself there, not the Clerk).
Even though IRL there are times I do suck (metaphorically speaking), sometimes I think evil is better tolerated than suckiness. I mean, good intentions aside, if you mess up a lot, people will avoid you (unless you are a wacky red head in the 50s, then you get a TV show), or they give each other that look when you say something and ask you to help out at the greeters table where you can't do much damage. If you are evil, but effective, people respect you. From a personal and philosophical standpoint we would like right thought to match right actions, but if it doesn't work out, more people want to hang out with the sick bastard who can get things done than the well-meaning spazz.
Even though IRL there are times I do suck (metaphorically speaking), sometimes I think evil is better tolerated than suckiness. I mean, good intentions aside, if you mess up a lot, people will avoid you (unless you are a wacky red head in the 50s, then you get a TV show), or they give each other that look when you say something and ask you to help out at the greeters table where you can't do much damage. If you are evil, but effective, people respect you. From a personal and philosophical standpoint we would like right thought to match right actions, but if it doesn't work out, more people want to hang out with the sick bastard who can get things done than the well-meaning spazz.
The Chinese have a curse, "May you live in interesting times!" Also, "May you marry an interesting (man|woman)!" Perhaps it is better to have an ineffective, bumbling leader.
I don't believe in evil genius concept, i.e. all evil is mediocre, a sign of deprivation, and of being disconnected from larger reality, emotionally disconnected, in the first place.
Currently, the evil in the world operates at border mental deficiency level, and it rules by sheer brute force, no sign of intelligence there at all.
Currently, the evil in the world operates at border mental deficiency level, and it rules by sheer brute force, no sign of intelligence there at all.
I somehow agree with both of you. The evil person is missing something. But some evil people are quite good at what they do.
I am amazed that someone else will say there is "evil". Last time we had this topic, few would agree that evil existed. 
Prob, evil as an emergant phenomenon is quite evident. I still have my doubts about metaphysical foundations of evil, though.
["In the philosophy of mind, the primary candidates for the status of emergent properties are mental states and events"]
Clerk and Irina, can you give me one example of an evil genius. I'd like to try to debunk him/ her along the lines of how I think about the subject matter
["In the philosophy of mind, the primary candidates for the status of emergent properties are mental states and events"]
Clerk and Irina, can you give me one example of an evil genius. I'd like to try to debunk him/ her along the lines of how I think about the subject matter
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar