Dan Severn's Moustache
Patent Pending
Барбоса;5604813 said:No one chooses to do anything they themselves perceive as evil?
Yes. Which is why evil cannot be defined with regards to realism. It is only debatable that it exists as a by-product, which, even then, is variable from person to person.
What new philosophy book have you gotten recently?
This isn't anything new I've started to believe in.
In a political discussion, it is good to keep an open mind but not everything is a political discussion. There are lines in the sand when why Nazis, ISIS, individuals etc. are acting as they are are no longer important.
And that shuts down the avenue of nuance and creates an environment where you view the other side as irredeemable without consideration. That's not me saying we shouldn't fight against ISIS or we shouldn't have fought against the Nazi's, but the pretense that these people are "evil" makes it too easy to justify our own issues. You can make good reasons to want to stop these people, with force if necessary. "Evil" is not one of them.
All words are fictionalised constructs - you just happen to not like the term evil; an overused term for sure but not one we should just stop using because it might hurt feelings or colour our reception of someone/thing.
Yes, but evil is different from most adjectives. Something like "selfish" is easy to define - someone interested in advancing their own agendas as opposed to others. Evil, on the other hand, is a very loose term.
And how is that not applicable to something like the Holocaust? Regardless of why it or any other genocide is taking place, it is inherently evil.
Because it was not inherently created for the intent of being evil. It may be a by-product, but to define something as evil is not a valid argument of opposition against something, especially when the decision is based upon pragmatism.
The ends don't justify the means, but to quote Stannis Baratheon: "Hard truths cut both ways."