h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Evil deeds do exist, within our various cultures.

Evil deeds need to exist within a social context, otherwise I don't see how we can classify something as 'evil'.

Okay, Hitler was nuts and many of his actions are deemed to be evil. I agree. The actions were evil. The man? I think he was totally nuts in the head. They say he was an intelligent man. I don't know. I still don't believe any human is capable of being totally evil. Hitler needed a lot of help to do what he did. So then, where do we place the blame? Just one example. Sadly, just one example of many.

az

"Not that simple, I think. Both are largely "natural" responses (care of the young is not an inhibition of a natural behaviour, for example.)"

Not sure about this, given the apparent spread of incest. In this respect is not having children and caring for them a natural response in that it is an investment in one's own future i.e. that someone will care for the parents in their old age? Alienating the children through abuse might prevent that.

I suppose my theory is that all 'evil' behaviour is the triumph of short term gains over long term benefits.

"The man? I think he was totally nuts in the head."

az, it sounds as though you are willing to theorise that great evil is the result of mental illness. It depends how you define mental illness. If you define it as - at least in part - 'that which produces acts which are very evil' then you are self referencing, which is logically invalid.

There are psychological conditions which are argued over by psychologists and which appear to create greater evil than true mental illness (by which I mean e.g. psychosis, bipolar disorder, OCD etc). These are called borderline psychological disorders and include e.g. psychopathy. All BPDs seem to exist in people who are perfectly sane, by all the usual indications, but can create acts of great cruelty because they simply don't care about pain in anyone else but themselves.

hi Heathen,

<>

Oh no, I didn't mean to say that at all. In fact, I think I was saying that people cannot truly be evil. I made the comment about Hitler because (my opinion) the guy was nuts. And yes yes yes, I do know that there are many levels and variations of being nuts (sorry, am being silly, okay, psychological conditions)

My particular family background made me study how and why certain people are 'nuts', okay? I have looked into this somewhat, though of course I am no expert. I just needed to understand for myself how people who othewise appeared sane could be so hurtful and sometimes cruel. I discovered that these people were not evil in themselves, though often their actions could have been deemed as quite evil and nasty. I learned that I needed to see the entire person before I could judge them. And once I could see as much of that person as was possible, I found I could not judge them at all.

I could easily say they were evil. Except that I can't. Because I got under their skin a bit, walked around a bit in their shoes as much as I could, and found out what made them the way they were. Which then made me still love them after all, in spite of everything.

So, sorry if I sounded glib about the 'nuts' thing. I don't actually take that term lightly. But I also don't believe that people are evil. It's like what Math was talking about. Or I think what he was saying. That society must take more responsibility somehow. For all the people who fall between the cracks along the way, and lose their way. Like my parents did. Like so many do. Who is there to help them?

az

"It seems to me that, thoughout history, 'God's rules' have been twisted and distorted to suit whoever was in power at the moment."

Quite.

Doesn't make God untrue, just unknowable.

I've had to create a new ID for 360.

This is just to check that it works on hootoo

Alji

Thanks, az - I'll add

And then, when we feel strong, we are going to unload my yurt...

Jez - heathen, witch and mad yurt owner (WTF am I going to keep a yurt in a Nottingham suburban house which is already full of books?)

"So, sorry if I sounded glib about the 'nuts' thing. I don't actually take that term lightly."

S'. I should have known you better.

"I could easily say they were evil. Except that I can't. Because I got under their skin a bit, walked around a bit in their shoes as much as I could, and found out what made them the way they were. Which then made me still love them after all, in spite of everything"

Have you read Solzenitsyn's "First Circle"? He gets under the skin of Stalin in that book and - IIRC - explains his acts of great cruelty in terms of the man's insecurity. I presume he took the title from Dante's "Inferno", which is a brilliant work (for many reasons).

I had an unwanted first hand opportunity to observe this sort of behaviour when my last partner flipped when, after I had told him I was leaving him, I embarked on some fun with someone else. He blackmailed, raped and terrorised me for ten months. (The police were helpless - they said blackmail for money could get someone sent to prison for 15 years, but blackmail for rape and other activities only merited a maximum of 2, if that). His motivations appeared to be a profound sense of injustice, and he felt it was up to him to punish me, coupled with an insecure need to present himself his social persona as sweetness and light and a terror of facing change alone. He had a driving need to view himself as the victim and be completely in the right. It was extremely unpleasant to be at the sharp end of the experience, which backed up everything I had studied about borderline personalities.

I think you're right that evil is always justified by the person (the point Solzenitsyn makes), and so evil acts are created for the ordinary reasons which motivate most people. What appears to happen is that the person cannot differentiate between the effects of what they do for these reasons, and so there is no 'stop' which prevents them sliding from something normal e.g. suing someone into something abnormal e.g. physical violence and other cruelty.

"But I also don't believe that people are evil. It's like what Math was talking about. Or I think what he was saying. That society must take more responsibility somehow. For all the people who fall between the cracks along the way, and lose their way. Like my parents did. Like so many do. Who is there to help them?"

There is legal problem. If someone is recognised as a borderline, they cannot be locked up just in case they do something extreme (though that was, a year or so back, suggested by the current UK government). That is to condemn someone without their breaking the law. Neither can you force such people into therapy, as they will not benefit as they do not believe they need it. So what is left - chemical intervention against their will? Can that be morally justified?

My own religion lays great stress upon people taking responsibility for their own actions and engaging in mutual relationships with others. We replace the basic Christian message of altruistic love for everyone with personal responsibility for oneself and an understanding that one's personal acts affect others, often in ways we cannot forsee and might not wish (which means we have to take care what we do). But not all people believe in a religious code. As you say, what is required is a social solution, capable of protecting themselves and others agasinst these people. But how is the problem, when they are considered legally sane and, therefore, responsible citizens.

"(WTF am I going to keep a yurt in a Nottingham suburban house which is already full of books?)"

Put it up in the house and put the books in it?

existentialism doesn't equal immorality

HS.. I admire your candour.
Oh yes I believe in evil.
It can be so subltle, so structural
and so legitimate. HS I don't know
how you keep you "cool",

eg the banality of evil

Indeed

hi Heathen,

What a terrible and terrifying personal story. I hope it is over now.

I believe I did read First Circle when I was going through my Russian authors stage (in my early twenties) but now I can't remember it, along with many other things from back then, or even from last week for that matter.

As you say, the legal and moral issues surrounding 'what to do' about people who commit evil acts are very difficult to sort out and agree upon.

But as with your ex and many others who do terrible things and feel justified for doing them . . . well, this shows already that there is something wrong or missing from these people, doesn't it? Or perhaps *they* are the 'normal and sane' people and others, like us, who would not seek vengeance or inflict pain on someone else because we felt hurt (etc etc) are the product of many years of social conditioning? Perhaps the 'natural' response is to lash out when hurt or take our pleasures however we like without caring about the results of our actions.

On the other hand, although nature often seems cruel to us, there are very few examples that animals show totally senseless, destructive and sadistic qualities.



az

The cat group of animals, I think, kill for pleasure Az.
But I'm not sure. H Sapiens is capable of evil. "Schaden freude" is one example. But to what extent this tendency fits into Darwinian evolution I can't imagine. Where is the benefit to reproduction?

"On the other hand, although nature often seems cruel to us, there are very few examples that animals show totally senseless, destructive and sadistic qualities."

Dolphins play 'football' with porpoises! The porpoises don't survive the 'game'.

Alji

<>

I didn't say this behaviour didn't exist. But I think that humans, as an animal species, exhibit this sort of behaviour much more than any other species of animals.

Maybe it's cos we have thumbs?

az

"Or perhaps *they* are the 'normal and sane' people and others, like us, who would not seek vengeance or inflict pain on someone else because we felt hurt (etc etc) are the product of many years of social conditioning? Perhaps the 'natural' response is to lash out when hurt or take our pleasures however we like without caring about the results of our actions"

But surely that is the natural response? If children are brutalised most of them (not all, thankfully) grow up to brutalise others. I know, for example, a very little of the way his father treated my ex when the latter was a child, and could see a lot of that in his reactions and behaviour. But it doesn't explain everything. In the same way, my current partner had a terrible childhood, but he managed to grow into a fairly sane and humane person (i say 'fairly' because he has a strict code of honour which most people and organisations feel is insane, such as resigning a high paid job or challenging the government for reasons of principle).

Many people grow up harbouring a massive anger inside them, which they are not entirely able to control. If they are sufficiently resiliant, they learn to channel or disperse this anger; if not, they express it, when under stress, in violence or cruelty of some form. The fascinating thing for psychologists now is the nature of resiliance and why some people have it and others do not appear to.

I do not see the point in lashing out. To me, it seems that the reaction will harm oneself, in the end, more than the other person. It escalates violence. Revenge binds oneself, ultimately, into a continuing relationship with the person one wishes to take revenge upon. I cannot see the point in giving someone you loathe so much power over yourself that you think constantly about that person and how to harm them. Unfortunately, there are many people whose anger is so great this is the nature of their relationships with people. We can see it on message boards such as this in the shape of trolls, including Justin the Preacher, who has a need to shape and control the world view of others to agree with his own. This is a form of violence springing from anger and fear.

But as to the answer to all this? A different social culture, I think. But as to how we manage that...

HS you have a point of view based on experience.
I must be reading, or perhaps not reading, Justin's posts
in a different interpretation than yours. So if you follow that argument then religious doctrine or declared belief becomes control.
Then.... following on control could be seen as evil. Never had that take on things before. But hang on.

If we are social animals then society must be a survival ploy, pack hunting, mothercare etc. Control would be necessary for organisation.
A leader would perhaps possess the necessary assertive attributes to
control the group.

Maybe that is one possibility. An "evil" streak is necessary for H Sapiens to survive. That this innate characteristic sometimes is redundant could be the clue. Takes sometime to let this idea stew for me.