The evil of superiority.

[Sculptor]

No. I'm not passing judgment on whether it is evil/very harmful or not. But, rather, raising the subject matter for discussion.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

Well, it raises a question about the regulatory ideal. By analogy with the pearls-before-swine issue, these days people talk a great deal about individualism and collectivism. And claim China does not respect the unlimited value of individual life, as in the recent report that people were made to starve to death on lock down for the general good. This, however, is a juxtipostion of the explicit western ideal, unlimited value of life, with the supposed de facto happenings in China. The de facto issue in the western countries can never rise to the ideal since it is impossible to distribute all resources in every case to a dying person. There must by "cost benifit analysis," to speak somewhat crasely.

So, should one strive to educate those who refuse or are recalcitraintly opposed to learning, as an ideal? It's not clear which is the good path. To obey the reality or "is" or to, rather, attempt to use the "ought" or ideal for the good, even towards transforming the "is" or human nature. To despise all the time is perhaps realistic, but harsh to the ear. Though, maybe it is not realistic, if reality is maliable.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

[TheVisionofEr]

Dunno, didn't use that word.

What word do you suppose it is meant to translate?

Not quite the same thing when it comes to philosophy, is it.

It's not clear. The Greeks understood the theoros as the most extreme practioner. The most worthy.

[TheVisionofEr]

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

Well, it raises a question about the regulatory ideal. By analogy with the pearls-before-swine issue, these days people talk a great deal about individualism and collectivism. And claim China does not respect the unlimited value of individual life, as in the recent report that people were made to starve to death on lock down for the general good. This, however, is a juxtipostion of the explicit western ideal, unlimited value of life, with the supposed de facto happenings in China. The de facto issue in the western countries can never rise to the ideal since it is impossible to distribute all resources in every case to a dying person. There must by "cost benifit analysis," to speak somewhat crasely.

So, should one strive to educate those who refuse or are recalcitraintly opposed to learning, as an ideal? It's not clear which is the good path. To obey the reality or "is" or to, rather, attempt to use the "ought" or ideal for the good, even towards transforming the "is" or human nature. To despise all the time is perhaps realistic, but harsh to the ear. Though, maybe it is not realistic, if reality is maliable.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

[Sculptor]

Well, it raises a question about the regulatory ideal. By analogy with the pearls-before-swine issue, these days people talk a great deal about individualism and collectivism. And claim China does not respect the unlimited value of individual life, as in the recent report that people were made to starve to death on lock down for the general good. This, however, is a juxtipostion of the explicit western ideal, unlimited value of life, with the supposed de facto happenings in China. The de facto issue in the western countries can never rise to the ideal since it is impossible to distribute all resources in every case to a dying person. There must by "cost benifit analysis," to speak somewhat crasely.

So, should one strive to educate those who refuse or are recalcitraintly opposed to learning, as an ideal? It's not clear which is the good path. To obey the reality or "is" or to, rather, attempt to use the "ought" or ideal for the good, even towards transforming the "is" or human nature. To despise all the time is perhaps realistic, but harsh to the ear. Though, maybe it is not realistic, if reality is maliable.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

So you've already contradicted yourself.
Alcohol is very harmful. You are not really saying anything here. There's lots that is harmful that is also good.
Is evil more than an adjective?

[Spyrith]

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

If it isn't apparent who evil harms, then it is at most relative. If evil is relative, then this means that what is evil to some is good to others. In which case, evil is not an absolute concept.

Case in point: Slavery is evil for the slave, but good for the slave owner. Slavery abolitionism is good for the slave, but evil for the slave owner. Facebook sucks for some, but is great for others.

Looking even further back, present society and our current way of life is built on evil. Democracy was evil for the tyrant, but good for the masses. In essence, the masses forced evil upon tyrants. Thus, democracy is built upon evil, even if directed towards a few.

[TheVisionofEr]

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

If it isn't apparent who evil harms, then it is at most relative. If evil is relative, then this means that what is evil to some is good to others. In which case, evil is not an absolute concept.

Case in point: Slavery is evil for the slave, but good for the slave owner. Slavery abolitionism is good for the slave, but evil for the slave owner.

Looking even further back, present society and our current way of life is built on evil. Democracy was evil for the tyrant, but good for the masses. In essence, the masses forced evil upon tyrants. Thus, democracy is built upon evil, even if directed towards a few.

It's not obvious. In former times inventions that let humans largely dominate the external environment were unforeseeable. People of a certain disposition may be better off taking orders, many do well in the military because of the guidance offered. The famous "A Letter to Garcia" shows the way subordination to tasks, good in themselves, set by others, can benifit the whole community.

In the 1890's oral histories, interviews, showed that large numbers of former slaves felt that they had been better off under slavery. That slavery was good. Today we have machinery, and already the mechanical reapers at the turn of the 20th century made this hard to grasp, but if no improvment in human society were to be expected, the proximate "evil" of servitude would be nessisary for a certain level of society, and, also, good under the circumstances for some. Clearly a man of exceptional qualities such as Douglas was must see in slavery a terrible evil (since he judges from his own case, the limitation of his natural potentialities was severe.) But, that is not obviously generalizable.

The modern disposition to impose universal principles, indifrent to both case by case individual charecteristics, and an analysis of what is realistic, leads to a notion that every hardship is an injustice, because not nessisary.

In the current issue, the thing is, if throwing the pearls to the swine could lead to discovering in the swine improvable or teachable humans, not making the attempt, dispising outright, would seem a harmful practise. The mode of analysis should consider the distinction between nessisary conditions, the "is," and delibrate actions, actions which can be then judged to be harmful or the reverse.

[TheVisionofEr]

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

So you've already contradicted yourself.
Alcohol is very harmful. You are not really saying anything here. There's lots that is harmful that is also good.
Is evil more than an adjective?

Let's take the title of the post as an unproven assertion, or provocation to an investigation.

[Sculptor]

I do, I take evil to mean very harmful. Though, it's not obvious to whom.

So you've already contradicted yourself.
Alcohol is very harmful. You are not really saying anything here. There's lots that is harmful that is also good.
Is evil more than an adjective?

Let's take the title of the post as an unproven assertion, or provocation to an investigation.

So what is "evil"?

[TheVisionofEr]

So you've already contradicted yourself.
Alcohol is very harmful. You are not really saying anything here. There's lots that is harmful that is also good.
Is evil more than an adjective?

Let's take the title of the post as an unproven assertion, or provocation to an investigation.

So what is "evil"?

Great harm.

[Sculptor]

Let's take the title of the post as an unproven assertion, or provocation to an investigation.

So what is "evil"?

Great harm.

I think you might want to do more than that.
Great harm can come on many guises, none of which you would necessarily call evil.

[TheVisionofEr]

So what is "evil"?

Great harm.

I think you might want to do more than that.
Great harm can come on many guises, none of which you would necessarily call evil.

Why?

[Sculptor]

Great harm.

I think you might want to do more than that.
Great harm can come on many guises, none of which you would necessarily call evil.

Why?

WHY what?

[TheVisionofEr]

I think you might want to do more than that.
Great harm can come on many guises, none of which you would necessarily call evil.

Why?

WHY what?

Which ways would I exclude?

[Sculptor]

Why?

WHY what?

Which ways would I exclude?

would you call an accident, causing great harm, evil?
Say a person injured by a sink hole?
What about a small child stabbing you with a knife? Is that evil?

[TheVisionofEr]

Delete