The nature of evil
Pursuant to the posted short story, as part of a several hour long conversation with Pascal yesterday, and a briefer one with Mr Porretto earlier today, I’m going to posit that the Nature of Evil is threefold:
1: Evil can cause suffering
2: Evil can enjoy witnessing suffering
3: Evil can profit from suffering
Yes, yes I know, non evil things can cause suffering like cancer yadda yadda. Don’t come here with semantic bullshit, I don’t want to hear it.
I have tried and tried to find a circumstance where this litmus test does not apply, and cannot find one.
For a person to be evil, they must meet one or more of the qualifications above. Discuss.
Update: Pursuant to an IM from reader Mike, yes, playing thje accordion IS evil, because it fulfils all three segments of the litmus test. Fortunately, it’s a minor evil. No, it’s not an altogether new kind of evil.
Evil breeds evil when it profits.
I need to re-read People of the Lie. Two of Peck’s characterizations of evil are that it lies and it evades responsibility, but I’ve forgotten what else he said. Your characterizations look good.
Don’t forget mimes…
I still bitter that you banned my netbitch. Lmao!
Evil requires knowledge and intent.
By which I mean, it’s not evil to simply cause suffering; it’s evil to do it knowing it’s causing suffering.
(Or, worst, because it causes suffering.)
Anyone can unknowingly cause vast amounts of suffering without being evil, after all – all my study of ethics leads me to reject strict consequentialism as useless.
(For that matter, I’d say for it to be evil, the suffering has to be enjoyed (or disregarded) by the causer for the benefit of the causer (or his allies/friends/etc).
That way someone causing someone to suffer “for their own good”, such as disciplining a child – or keeping them from a harmful but pleasurable activity – is not evil, but someone causing harm for their own benefit still is.
Further fine-tuning to prevent classifying imprisonment of criminals as “evil” due to it causing suffering in them is left as an exercise to the reader.)
This post cuts deeply… deeply man.
So, seeing atrocity comitted and staying uninvolved does not meet the criteria because there is no profit or enjoyment, or cause (only observance)?