Good and evil and everything in between

[Recidiva]

I think the "suit and tie" as the harbinger of evil is just another chance to categorize something that isn't universally true. You have to consider what's in the suit. It's a mistake to think all Americans are blind to anything but the suit.

You might be trapped in a bit of a logical paradox here.

Americans elected Bush, from my estimation, in an attempt to protect them from outside negative influences. I equate it to a rather naive and abused Hollywood actress hiring an agent or bodyguard. Someone to handle all the "unpleasantness."

I consider that America was undergoing a bit of a trauma at the time and overreacted in a fairly predictable way. Fortunately we seemed to have regained some balance and personal strength.

Good and evil are entirely relative and contextual. Categorizing "Americans" as one coherent group and "suit and tie" as "evil" is another tragic oversimplification.

It sounds like wisdom but to me it's just more prejudice in calm words. Ironically...it's evil in a suit. Soft words that just make the situation seem much simpler and more evil than it is.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

If we were to bring all the guilty parties to trial, though, who would be more vilified, the man who carried a woman into a foreign country, against her will, to make her a slave or the man who knowingly let that man cross the border with false papers?

Well, I do think that, in general, assisting another in a crime (especially through passivity) is less of an evil than the actual commission of the crime. That's not to say that it's not still wrong, of course.

But I think I see what you're getting at, though. And it's something that appears in certain criminal cases, where the victim is, say, a prostitute or a gangster. There's a tendency among juries to "convict the victim", as if their lives are inherently worth less. On the other hand, someone who manages to come across as a "pillar of the community" type can get away with more.

Why? Maybe because we're social creatures, obsessed with in-group and out-group classifications. Tribalism is alive and well, ime.

 

[Keroin]

I think the "suit and tie" as the harbinger of evil is just another chance to categorize something that isn't universally true. You have to consider what's in the suit. It's a mistake to think all Americans are blind to anything but the suit.

You might be trapped in a bit of a logical paradox here.

Americans elected Bush, from my estimation, in an attempt to protect them from outside negative influences. I equate it to a rather naive and abused Hollywood actress hiring an agent or bodyguard. Someone to handle all the "unpleasantness."

I consider that America was undergoing a bit of a trauma at the time and overreacted in a fairly predictable way. Fortunately we seemed to have regained some balance and personal strength.

Good and evil are entirely relative and contextual. Categorizing "Americans" as one coherent group and "suit and tie" as "evil" is another tragic oversimplification.

It sounds like wisdom but to me it's just more prejudice in calm words. Ironically...it's evil in a suit. Soft words that just make the situation seem much simpler and more evil than it is.

I don't think all Americans are the same, not even slightly, so please don't think I'm that naive. And I agree that the election of Bush - at least the first time around - was reactionary. However, I do think think there are biases based on appearance, when it comes to our perception of evil. (I don't buy into the notion of "evil" but it's a word that will have to work for now).

The dirty guy who holds up a convenience store for a hundred bucks is certainly more frightening to most people than the nice man in the business suit who fleeces hundreds of innocent people out of their life savings. We may detest the nice man in the suit but we fear the dirty guy. Does that make sense?

 

[Recidiva]

I don't think all Americans are the same, not even slightly, so please don't think I'm that naive. And I agree that the election of Bush - at least the first time around - was reactionary. However, I do think think there are biases based on appearance, when it comes to our perception of evil. (I don't buy into the notion of "evil" but it's a word that will have to work for now).

The dirty guy who holds up a convenience store for a hundred bucks is certainly more frightening to most people than the nice man in the business suit who fleeces hundreds of innocent people out of their life savings. We may detest the nice man in the suit but we fear the dirty guy. Does that make sense?

Yeah, but again you're saying "most people" but what you're saying doesn't apply to me at least, so it doesn't resonate.

People who do that are dealing only in appearances and aren't dealing with essences. Lazy. Darwin also has some stuff to say about it.

If you want to come to the conclusion that evil can come of not paying attention closely, I'm with you there entirely.

I didn't vote for Bush.

Ken Lay is not my hero and I'm not sorry the Bush white house didn't bail him out.

 

[Keroin]

Yeah, but again you're saying "most people" but what you're saying doesn't apply to me at least, so it doesn't resonate.

People who do that are dealing only in appearances and aren't dealing with essences. Lazy. Darwin also has some stuff to say about it.

If you want to come to the conclusion that evil can come of not paying attention closely, I'm with you there entirely.

I didn't vote for Bush.

Ken Lay is not my hero and I'm not sorry the Bush white house didn't bail him out.

I think that Darwin is a big part of this. Visual cues are intrinsic to human survival. I also think that, here I go again, most people are reactionary. Sorry, but that's my experience.

The majority of my American friends didn't vote for Bush, (the majority of my American friends are world travelers and tend to be more liberal), I just wish there had been more of them.

It was interesting to watch the slow evolution of my right wing, Republican friends during the course of Bush's presidency. In the early days, they supported him unequivocally and nothing I could say would change their minds. As time went on, they started to say things like, "Well, I don't agree with all of Bush's policies but I support the Republican party". And, finally, they just said nothing at all - even when poked and prodded, (not that I would do something like that, LOL).

 

[jockdom]

So is Obama evil for sending more troops into Afghanistan and continuing the illegal and immoral war in Iraq? Not to mention a few 2000 pound bombs in Pakistan. I don't think so. I think security briefings make you a realist.

Be careful when fighting monsters less you become one yourself.

 

[Recidiva]

I think that Darwin is a big part of this. Visual cues are intrinsic to human survival. I also think that, here I go again, most people are reactionary. Sorry, but that's my experience.

The majority of my American friends didn't vote for Bush, (the majority of my American friends are world travelers and tend to be more liberal), I just wish there had been more of them.

It was interesting to watch the slow evolution of my right wing, Republican friends during the course of Bush's presidency. In the early days, they supported him unequivocally and nothing I could say would change their minds. As time went on, they started to say things like, "Well, I don't agree with all of Bush's policies but I support the Republican party". And, finally, they just said nothing at all - even when poked and prodded, (not that I would do something like that, LOL).

Evolution took care of relying on visual cues when camouflage came to be. Once you have a decent grasp of that idea, visual cues become more of a secondary issue. It did with me anyway. I DO get that I'm a minority on this issue. But I'm sure I'm not alone.

I'm a political moderate in temperament and I don't really go with any party. I see Democrats also being obtuse, fear-mongering and demonizing their opposition. I'm not happy that they did absolutely flat nothing in response other than consult with their lawyers and do the equivalent of wrinkling their noses.

Unfortunately there are individual good guys, but look at Jesus. Good guy. People following him...not always so good. Good groups are...I don't want to say impossible, but improbable over time. Gotta watch 'em all. All the time. That's what CSPAN's for I guess.

I pay more attention to what individuals do over time. Actions and not words, patterns and not isolated incidents. Even THAT'S prone to lulling you into a false sense of trust if undertaken by a pro.

 

[Netzach]

We shot a lot of bullets into the jungle of Korea too. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather live in South Korea than under communism. Hell, the SK are four inches taller now than the red cousins.

The lesson of Vietnam was let the professionals run the battleground and not some Texan in the White House. But you can't win a war with a country with porous borders and outside help. Ask the Russians about Afghanistan. I don't see us wiinning there either. But it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't want to let go either.

The lesson of Vietnam was GTFO.

Vietnam was one of the few places we'd fucked around in that had an economy on the uptick and a viable middle class a while after we left.

FWIW I see no "win" in Afghanistan on the horizon whatthefucksoever.

I think shore up some kind of government of SOME sort and GTFO is the best we can hope for. Stick around the border though.

 

[WriterDom]

The lesson of Vietnam was GTFO.

Vietnam was one of the few places we'd fucked around in that had an economy on the uptick and a viable middle class a while after we left.

FWIW I see no "win" in Afghanistan on the horizon whatthefucksoever.

I think shore up some kind of government of SOME sort and GTFO is the best we can hope for. Stick around the border though.

Better keep an eye on Mexico. They have 100,000 cartel troops. Cheap oil, reduced tourism, and less money from Mexicans in the US are breaking the country. And the recession/depression. Mexico could collapse. The last thing we need is 20 million Mexicans taking refuge across our borders.

 

[Netzach]

Better keep an eye on Mexico. They have 100,000 cartel troops. Cheap oil, reduced tourism, and less money from Mexicans in the US are breaking the country. And the recession/depression. Mexico could collapse. The last thing we need is 20 million Mexicans taking refuge across our borders.

My understanding is that these are predictable growing pains as the second non PRI president like, ever, is actually bothering to *try* and do something about the cartels.

Problem is they're outgunned. Gee how'd that happen?

 

[Netzach]

As for good vs. evil, I don't really equate passive and active involvement per se, but there is a line wherein your passivity is so outrageous as to be practically active. It's not something that can be litigated, unfortunately. I think the guy selling gas to the sex trafficker for his trip is not as culpable as the guy who's looking the other way every single day when it's in his face at customs, and moreover, it's less about the schmuck stamping passports as it is about his boss. And his boss.

And none of them are as guilty as the person trafficking. Victim of circumstance though he may be. There are things I'll die before doing, don't know about you.

And frankly, put the blame where it lies. With the people doing the wrong thing. This whole "you too could be a Nazi if pushed" thing is a good alarm bell, but really it dliutes the complete beyond the fucking pale behavior of Nazis. Or Janjaweed. Or whoever decides better them than me and does these things.

IE: simply being German and breathing between 1930 and 1945 doesn't automatically label you evil.

Sadly I think the Reader is probably another movie crapping up a book that's really about being young and German in postwar era and the weight of all that, really a book more for a German audience.

 

[WriterDom]

My understanding is that these are predictable growing pains as the second non PRI president like, ever, is actually bothering to *try* and do something about the cartels.

Problem is they're outgunned. Gee how'd that happen?

They didn't get LAW rockets or grenade launchers at Walmart. For the right price you can get anything in this world.

 

[Keroin]

As for good vs. evil, I don't really equate passive and active involvement per se, but there is a line wherein your passivity is so outrageous as to be practically active. It's not something that can be litigated, unfortunately. I think the guy selling gas to the sex trafficker for his trip is not as culpable as the guy who's looking the other way every single day when it's in his face at customs, and moreover, it's less about the schmuck stamping passports as it is about his boss. And his boss.

And none of them are as guilty as the person trafficking. Victim of circumstance though he may be. There are things I'll die before doing, don't know about you.

And frankly, put the blame where it lies. With the people doing the wrong thing. This whole "you too could be a Nazi if pushed" thing is a good alarm bell, but really it dliutes the complete beyond the fucking pale behavior of Nazis. Or Janjaweed. Or whoever decides better them than me and does these things.

IE: simply being German and breathing between 1930 and 1945 doesn't automatically label you evil.

Sadly I think the Reader is probably another movie crapping up a book that's really about being young and German in postwar era and the weight of all that, really a book more for a German audience.

Collective guilt. Poor Germans. The world has seen no shortage of despots and genocides but for some reason Germans seem to bear the bulk of the world’s ire. I have a friend who was a year old when her father died on the Russian front. She tells me she feels guilt for what the Nazi’s did, even though she knows, rationally, that she is in no way responsible.

I haven’t seen the movie – still waiting for the pirated copy to arrive here, if the censorship board lets it in. I thought the novel did a good job bringing a lot of the grey areas of that era to the surface and examining them. This was initially what prompted my questions regarding the nature of good and evil.

Speaking of collective guilt and culpability, I often deal with this when I think of the native indians from my home land. (Please feel free to substitute “Indian” with the label of your choice but my native friends use that word). I know I was not responsible for what happened to them, nor would I ever endorse such treatment, but that doesn’t change the fact that my happy, privileged life came as a direct result of their wholesale slaughter and relocation. I’m not entirely sure how to process that.

 

[Netzach]

I get Arendt, I do. Evil is insidious and banal on the surface.

But ordinary people being ordinary and rational behave like Sophie Scholl, not Hitler. Her heroism is a case of doing what any sane rational and human person should do.

Extraordinary circumstances can be manipulated to incite extraordinary result.

 

[Netzach]

Collective guilt. Poor Germans. The world has seen no shortage of despots and genocides but for some reason Germans seem to bear the bulk of the world’s ire. I have a friend who was a year old when her father died on the Russian front. She tells me she feels guilt for what the Nazi’s did, even though she knows, rationally, that she is in no way responsible.

I haven’t seen the movie – still waiting for the pirated copy to arrive here, if the censorship board lets it in. I thought the novel did a good job bringing a lot of the grey areas of that era to the surface and examining them. This was initially what prompted my questions regarding the nature of good and evil.

Speaking of collective guilt and culpability, I often deal with this when I think of the native indians from my home land. (Please feel free to substitute “Indian” with the label of your choice but my native friends use that word). I know I was not responsible for what happened to them, nor would I ever endorse such treatment, but that doesn’t change the fact that my happy, privileged life came as a direct result of their wholesale slaughter and relocation. I’m not entirely sure how to process that.

Most movements of humans in all countries and continents have involved the relocation of indigenous folks, and this isn't usually accomplished with hand lettered invitations.

There isn't a rolling back of the clock possible.

Coexist or die in these new multi cultures, as in the Mid East, as in Sri Lanka, as in N. Ireland.

 

[Keroin]

Most movements of humans in all countries and continents have involved the relocation of indigenous folks, and this isn't usually accomplished with hand lettered invitations.

There isn't a rolling back of the clock possible.

Coexist or die in these new multi cultures, as in the Mid East, as in Sri Lanka, as in N. Ireland.

Yeah, guess so.

Oh, off topic, the verdict is "Ri ki ki...etc" is advertising jargon. French connection has no idea what any of it means. Well, I know "plus" means "more" but that's about it.

My serious mood has withered in the heat. Time to get some work done. Thanks for good input all.

 

[graceanne]

there is a line wherein your passivity is so outrageous as to be practically active.

That reminds me of something I read. Might have been here. But it was about a study that was done where people were brought in and told that even if they didn't finish the study they would still be paid for the study. Then they were told to push a button. A woman in the other room would scream. The person conducting the study would then say 'oh, don't worry. she's fine. do it again.' And the majority of the people in this study WOULD!

I have a friend who was a year old when her father died on the Russian front. She tells me she feels guilt for what the Nazi’s did, even though she knows, rationally, that she is in no way responsible.

That's actually common, and something that confuses me. People who feel guilty for the crimes of the ancestors. Like all the Americans who still feel guilty over enslaving Africans and murdering Native Americans.

Personally, yeah it sucked. I don't feel guilty at all. Anymore than I feel guilty for the way other 'Christians' have treated people. I don't expect apologies from every junkie cause my mom abused me while using, and I wont' apologize because someone said something unkind in the name of Christ.

I might be pissed and/or sympathetic, but I didn't do it and I don't feel guilty.

 

[Homburg]

Hi Homburg!

You bring up an interesting point and it's something that I wonder about. How do we define levels of evil. Is murder "better" if there is only one victim compared to a thousand, or several thousand? Is a war with a million casualties better than genocide with a million casualties? Is a crime of passion more forgivable than a calculated crime? I'm not taking a side here, I'm honestly curious.

I remember a quote I once read: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill ten men and you are a monster. Kill one hundred men, and you are a hero. Kill one million men, and it is a statistic." I am para phrasing, a sI cannot recall the exact wording. I think it may have been Stalin. *shrug*

Looking at each question individually...

"one victim compared to a thousand, or several thousand?"

Yes, I would say that one murder victim is less reprehensible than a thousand or several thousand. One person dying is a horrible thing, but thousands is another scale entirely.

"Is a war with a million casualties better than genocide with a million casualties?"

Yes. In war, at least in theory, the participants had some sort of choice, some sort of self-determination (though conscripts have precious little), and, moreover, so say in the outcome of their participation. Sure, if you are a conscript in the Russian army in 1943, you don't have much say or self-determination, but you can sure as hell fight like mad to be a good soldier and survive. It beats the odds, and utter lack of self-determination, of a prisoner in a genocide camp.

Both may result in a million deaths, but the manner in which those deaths are met makes a difference in my eyes.

"Is a crime of passion more forgivable than a calculated crime?"

Yes. The courts bear this out time and again. A man comes home from work early and finds his wife in the arms of another man. He freaks the hell out, grabs a knife, and kills the man. His act is reprehensible, yes, but he is highly unlikely to ever do so again, and will feel horrible. The person that coldly plots out a murder, and carries it out, is far more the dangerous animal. The forethought, and preplanned malice illustrate a moral and ethical cancer that far outstrips the problems of the guy that went berserk. The former represents no real danger to society, while the latter does, and this assertion is borne out by recidivism rates amongst murderers.

In Vietnam, for example, there wasn't a planned, mass murder carried out in a ruthless and efficient manner but there were atrocities. And the defoliation of that country, because of the weapons used in the war, continues to cause suffering for the Vietnamese people on a large scale. Are the sufferings of those people less significant than, say, than that of the survivors in Rwanda?

Not particularly, no. Viet Nam has certainly shown a willingness and ability to pull itself up by the bootstraps though. Credit where credit is due.

Is one kind of bad worse than another kind of bad and, if so, why and how do we decide? Better yet, who decides?

History. And god (or whatever you call it) if you are religious. History is what tells us what is bad and good in the political arena. *shrug*

--

Collective guilt. Poor Germans. The world has seen no shortage of despots and genocides but for some reason Germans seem to bear the bulk of the world’s ire.

It's because Hitler and his pals were so damned mediagenic. They knew how to move with flair, and capture the eye of the camera. Because they were vastly higher profile than other genocidal regimes, they are more hated.

And, honestly, their imagery is easy to hate. Very iconic and effective. Too effective, honestly.

Speaking of collective guilt and culpability, I often deal with this when I think of the native indians from my home land. (Please feel free to substitute “Indian” with the label of your choice but my native friends use that word). I know I was not responsible for what happened to them, nor would I ever endorse such treatment, but that doesn’t change the fact that my happy, privileged life came as a direct result of their wholesale slaughter and relocation. I’m not entirely sure how to process that.

I feel no remorse or guilt whatsoever over it. Nor do I feel any guilt or remorse over what my Japanese ancestors did to China (or anyone else in that area of the world, nor in Pearl). Nor do I feel rage over Japanese internment camps. Nor slavery of Africans here in the south. Nor any of a myriad of other atrocities and wrongs committed by people long dead before I was even born. I don't feel bad at all.

I feel bad for people held down today by a system that associate class with race, and won't let folks cross either line. I feel bad about sexism that prevents women from getting paid the same as men for the same work output. I feel bad about homosexuals being mistreated by the legal system. In short, I feel bad about the things that my culture, and my government, are doing today, and the things they've done in the recent past that are actively affecting people today. Y'know, I feel badly about the things that I might just have a chance of fixing. Not the shit that I wasn't involved in, and victimised people long, long dead.

And, honestly, your happy privileged life is only slightly the result of that. The majority of the privilege you enjoy is by virtue of the sweat of your brow, and the sacrifices your family made in preparing you to offer forth that sweat. Yes, class and race help, but plenty of white dudes from good families wind up dissolute.

 

[YourCaptor]

Waitwaitwait.

You are saying that a colonist murdering a kidnappee is somehow equal to grossly shitty marksmanship in an active hot war, and that both are somehow the same as organised, industrial-scale genocide?!? What the fuck is wrong with your sense of perspective?

I may not be an expert on the history of African colonialism, and know of some nasty atrocities, but, jumping jesus balls, it is not the same as what happened in Buchenwald and Aushwitz. And 25k rounds for every one hit? Who gives a jumped-up fuck in comparison to what occurred behind those camp walls? Criminally bad shooting is not a crime against humanity, no matter how loudly Jeff Cooper might bitch.

If you want to make fair comparisons to Nazi Germany, look towards Pol Pot or Stalin (who made Hitler look like a piker). Those are reasonable comparisons. Shitty marksmanship though? I'm all for legalisation, but whatever you are smoking doesn't need to be available for public consumption.

What are you babbling about?

I'm talking motive here, how dehumanization is key.

Dehumanization, such as when America decided that in order to contain communism it had to take control of a people and use them to do so. Fuck em if they didn't want too, just spray them with lead.

 

[WriterDom]

What are you babbling about?

I'm talking motive here, how dehumanization is key.

Dehumanization, such as when America decided that in order to contain communism it had to take control of a people and use them to do so. Fuck em if they didn't want too, just spray them with lead.

Hey comrade, what about the one million south Vietnamese sent to re-education camps where 200,000 or so died. Do you weep for them?

 

[Homburg]

What are you babbling about?

I'm talking motive here, how dehumanization is key.

Dehumanization, such as when America decided that in order to contain communism it had to take control of a people and use them to do so. Fuck em if they didn't want too, just spray them with lead.

Scale. Intent. Reality. This is what I am talking about. You attempted to equate three scenarios that were not close to equal in any way.

Here's another magical clue about Viet Nam: it was the first war fought were essentially every combatant had fully automatic weapons. Of course there going to be a stupendous amount of rounds fired for every hit. They still didn't know what the hell to do with their weapons aside from spray-and-pray. If you look at the armament we're using now, three-round burst is the most shots put downrange with one trigger-pull, and the training has a VERY strong emphasis on single shots per target. Accuracy rates have sky-rocketed.

Oh, and it also helps that we are still a volunteer force, unlike Viet Nam. Conscripts with fully automatic weapons means lots of waste. The humanity of it is not so much a factor.

 

[WriterDom]

Scale. Intent. Reality. This is what I am talking about. You attempted to equate three scenarios that were not close to equal in any way.

Here's another magical clue about Viet Nam: it was the first war fought were essentially every combatant had fully automatic weapons. Of course there going to be a stupendous amount of rounds fired for every hit. They still didn't know what the hell to do with their weapons aside from spray-and-pray. If you look at the armament we're using now, three-round burst is the most shots put downrange with one trigger-pull, and the training has a VERY strong emphasis on single shots per target. Accuracy rates have sky-rocketed.

Oh, and it also helps that we are still a volunteer force, unlike Viet Nam. Conscripts with fully automatic weapons means lots of waste. The humanity of it is not so much a factor.

Much of it was jungle warfare too where you don't always see who you are shooting at.

I had a boss who got drafted and went into the navy sonar program figuring he'd be safe. But once they put him on gunner duty on a rescue chopper. They came under attack. He said he shot so many rounds he ruined the gun. And pissed his pants.

 

[Homburg]

Much of it was jungle warfare too where you don't always see who you are shooting at.

I had a boss who got drafted and went into the navy sonar program figuring he'd be safe. But once they put him on gunner duty on a rescue chopper. They came under attack. He said he shot so many rounds he ruined the gun. And pissed his pants.

Yep, loads and loads and loads of stories like that. My dad was army during that time, though he never got sent to Nam. My friends all had dads the same age, so most of them went over there, and came back with the same sort of stories.

Hell, there are characters in Viet Nam war movies based off guys I knew.

 

[ZRT]

There's also the fact that a lot of shots are fired without the direct intent to specifically hit anybody, but to make the other guys keep their heads down so your guys can maneuver.

 

[Homburg]

There's also the fact that a lot of shots are fired without the direct intent to specifically hit anybody, but to make the other guys keep their heads down so your guys can maneuver.

Yes, when you have the greatest logistics chain the world has ever seen, you can afford to do this. And, frankly, how is it dehumanising to try to just get the other bloke to keep his head down? I think it is, in its' own way, less evil to shoot towards someone fully aware that you won't hit them, than it is to shoot at someone, trying to hit them.