Comments on On the Question of Evil - It's a Blogging Daisy-Chain!

Go to Fishing in the Rivers of Light - Add a comment - Go to On the Question of Evil - It's a Blogging Daisy-Chain!

To answer Chris's question, I maintain that the most helpful understanding of good versus evil is a continuum or spectrum, with each end representing the absolute, extremest form of its kind.  To avoid any political implication, maybe it would be best to make the continuum go up and down instead of left to right.  So on the top would be the greatest good imaginable, on the bottom the most awful evil (such as genocide that kills 6 million people).  This is imperfect, though, because I also maintain that there is no such thing as moral neutrality, an action that is equally good and evil or neither good nor evil, and the middle point of a spectrum by definition must be just that.  In any case, the opposite of the worst evil is the best good. 

posted by Dylan24 on January 20, 2005 at 8:08 AM | link to this | reply

Chris...

...that's a very good question. May I open it up to the group?

Anyone?

D

posted by DamonLeigh on January 20, 2005 at 7:33 AM | link to this | reply

Tapsel-T...

...I thought as I wrote that that it might get a reaction.

I guess that while a belief in God is still commonplace in the Christian west (though not nearly so common as it was a few hundred years ago) beleif in the Devil, and Hell, is less pronounced than it was, mainly, I guess, because we now know what causes disease and why people die, and it's not possession, or the work of the Devil.

Having said all that, I'm sure there are folk around who do believe in the Horned One. Devil-worshipers, for example.

But that only goes to strengthen my central point - that the term 'evil' is an extreme term meant for extreme acts. It was barely ever used when i was a kid. Now you can't open a paper without seeing it. The world is no worse, really. But the manipulators who run our media needed a strong word to shock readers with, and they chose evil (amongst others). Now, it's so over-used and misunderstood its in danger of becoming a cliche which, as I've said, would be disrespectful of all those who have suffered from truly evil acts.

Thanks for reading - I'll look out for your continuation!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on January 20, 2005 at 7:32 AM | link to this | reply

ExStud...

...nice one.

I may have more to say on this matter at a later date. Stay tuned!!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on January 20, 2005 at 6:37 AM | link to this | reply

Damon, I'll post this comment here too. I posted this in my blog earlier:

Damon, thanks for leaving such a thoughtful comment.  I suppose I should at least acknowledge degrees of evil instead of just using the word evil itself.  I do indeed think of the opposite of good as bad, but in the moral context, the opposite of the strongest good imaginable (the ideal) must be the strongest bad imaginable or evil.  You are right that we should reserve the strongest condemnations for the worst acts.  I would be happy to accomodate those concerns by using different language -- as long as the language does not naively try to avoid judgment, and your adjectives of malicious, etc. do suffice for moral judgments.  My central point is that there is no such thing as withholding moral judgment, so we might as well make the right judgments (and direct them, when possible, against actions and not necessarily people, since people are not wholly defined by their actions).

The point you made about 'evil' shutting down discussion is interesting.  I have heard this kind of concern before -- in the context of absolute, certain judgments.  It leaves room for debate if the debate is just two opposites arguing, but I suppose the condemner of "evil ones" will never be persuaded.  

When Mr. Bush was criticized for calling the regimes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil", I found that criticism misplaced -- the people who objected to a 'simplistic' label would probably have been hard-pressed to find a label less damning if they had experienced first-hand the behavior of these regimes.  I think Kim's prisoner camps (including the family members of dissidents, not just troublemakers themselves) deserve to be called evil policy, for example.  On the other hand, perhaps this is one of those cases where "evil" shuts down discussion -- obviously once Mr. Bush labeled the regime "evil", there was no negotiating with it in any kind of good faith.  Not that I have much faith that such a discussion would be possible in any case, but it would seem unwise to rule it out. 

posted by Dylan24 on January 19, 2005 at 5:49 PM | link to this | reply

Damon Leigh

So if evil isn't the opposite of good, what is evil the opposite of?  Very good?

I jest, but your point seems to be good. 

posted by chris2303 on January 19, 2005 at 10:17 AM | link to this | reply

DamonLeigh, when you say "No one believes in the devil anymore" are you being facetious?   Or, do you mean no one you know?    Or, do you mean no one of importance?   It would be interesting to do a study on that--take a poll, interview people, etc.   Belief in the devil as does belief in God, changes ones whole perspective of life and effects their actions and the way that they live.   Maybe I'll keep your chain going.  Maybe.

posted by TAPS. on January 19, 2005 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply