Define evil in the context of modern society
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Bee, I agree with the idea of little evils and big ones. Hitler and Stalin? Big evil. The Menendez brothers (southern California a couple of decades ago) were smaller evils. Me gleefully stepping on a cockroach or palmetto bug? Not sure that one even registers.
Your other comment is worthy of discussion. We have a language-bag full of euphemisms for people we believe to be evil. "Not a decent bone in his body." "A waste of air." "Skipped school on the day they taught about 'good'." I think that we find evil to not ONLY be a description of people who actively hurt others but also for those who scrupulously avoid showing any facet of charity or kindness or mercy or civility. The implication might be that we find it evil for folks to not be supportive of the community in some way. Which makes me pause because I refuse to support the plight of others sometimes. For me it is a matter of principle.
When a mother cries because her child has committed a terrible crime and she bemoans some loss or another, I feel no sympathy because I see the situation as the result of her being a bad mother. In other words, I am not averse to saying that sometimes, bad things happen to people who invited negative karma. And that occasional unforgiving attitude lets me know I am not an angel.
Even so, I have no trouble supporting specific charities when they have their annual fundraisers. My step-daughter's "battered women's shelter" charity and my step-son's "mentally challenged child" charity are two examples. And my grand-kids love me. So I know I'm not all bad.
Your other comment is worthy of discussion. We have a language-bag full of euphemisms for people we believe to be evil. "Not a decent bone in his body." "A waste of air." "Skipped school on the day they taught about 'good'." I think that we find evil to not ONLY be a description of people who actively hurt others but also for those who scrupulously avoid showing any facet of charity or kindness or mercy or civility. The implication might be that we find it evil for folks to not be supportive of the community in some way. Which makes me pause because I refuse to support the plight of others sometimes. For me it is a matter of principle.
When a mother cries because her child has committed a terrible crime and she bemoans some loss or another, I feel no sympathy because I see the situation as the result of her being a bad mother. In other words, I am not averse to saying that sometimes, bad things happen to people who invited negative karma. And that occasional unforgiving attitude lets me know I am not an angel.
Even so, I have no trouble supporting specific charities when they have their annual fundraisers. My step-daughter's "battered women's shelter" charity and my step-son's "mentally challenged child" charity are two examples. And my grand-kids love me. So I know I'm not all bad.
Based on Bee's scale of evil, how does that relate to the railroad thought experiment. There are 20 people tied to the track and the train is hurtling down out of control. You stand by the lever with the option to redirect the train into the side track, which will mean you murder the single person tied to that track.
Should you commit murder? Is it evil not to commit murder in this instance? Is it therefore good and moral to commit murder here?
"Though shalt not kill." Was God wrong?
Should you commit murder? Is it evil not to commit murder in this instance? Is it therefore good and moral to commit murder here?
"Though shalt not kill." Was God wrong?
Slightly off-topic, but in response to Doc, I think many people have their pet charities to support. For some it's kids charities, for others it's wildlife etc. My pet charity is Hearing Dogs for the Deaf as I have two close friends (not related) who are both Deaf and have hearing dogs, so I see what a difference that resource makes. Not supporting any/all charities doesn't classify someone as being evil - or even bad in some way.
I have to take issue though with the bad mother scenario. Where does the father figure in this?
And in response to Jon's train tracks experiment, I'm conflicted. The humanist in me wants to save everyone but knows that's not possible - yet to save the majority, I have to be prepared to kill one person. And yet, there's a high probability that I'd pull that lever to prevent the deaths of 20 people. However, there's a school of thought that says do nothing. And I would be sorely tempted to do nothing - on the basis that it's not for me to decide who lives and who dies. And that would make me a monster - certainly in terms of my own conscience. So, maybe I have the capacity to be evil, even though I'm very people-centred.
I have to take issue though with the bad mother scenario. Where does the father figure in this?
And in response to Jon's train tracks experiment, I'm conflicted. The humanist in me wants to save everyone but knows that's not possible - yet to save the majority, I have to be prepared to kill one person. And yet, there's a high probability that I'd pull that lever to prevent the deaths of 20 people. However, there's a school of thought that says do nothing. And I would be sorely tempted to do nothing - on the basis that it's not for me to decide who lives and who dies. And that would make me a monster - certainly in terms of my own conscience. So, maybe I have the capacity to be evil, even though I'm very people-centred.
Bee, regarding the "bad mother" scenario. Taking into account that for some people, marriage is already outmoded (see other thread in this forum), what father? I'm actually on your side - but so many people think marriage isn't needed even after a child is on the way, and so many people don't admit to parental responsibility anyway, that there might as well be no father at all. (Other than that we doubt having that many immaculate conceptions.)
Consider all of the accusations flying about on shows like Maury Pauvich's show in the USA or Jeremy Kyle's show in the UK, where paternity tests show that a very large percentage of the time, the woman doesn't know who fathered her baby. So many women wait until after the fact to accuse some guy they think would be a good father, but he (correctly) isn't having any of it. The "bad mother" scenario started LONG before there was a baby on the way. I have to be careful here because I don't want to seem biased, so I will clarify that I know the phenomenon isn't exclusive to one race. Too many poor, uneducated women don't understand the consequences of sex and yet have unprotected relations with their guy of the moment. The law of averages catches up with them and suddenly out pops another welfare baby.
I know it was wrong and I know it should never be done again, but I understand why in Georgia (USA) in the 1930s or so, forced sterilization occurred. It was the wrong solution to the problem, but nobody wants to do the right thing, and that is have MANDATORY sex education for kids BEFORE they reach prime puberty age. And NO PARENT should have the right to opt out of that teaching regardless of religious beliefs. To be honest, the lack of such an important teaching session is evil in another way. I see it as a tacit conspiracy by certain religions to try to increase the number of sheep they will eventually shear in their flocks.
Consider all of the accusations flying about on shows like Maury Pauvich's show in the USA or Jeremy Kyle's show in the UK, where paternity tests show that a very large percentage of the time, the woman doesn't know who fathered her baby. So many women wait until after the fact to accuse some guy they think would be a good father, but he (correctly) isn't having any of it. The "bad mother" scenario started LONG before there was a baby on the way. I have to be careful here because I don't want to seem biased, so I will clarify that I know the phenomenon isn't exclusive to one race. Too many poor, uneducated women don't understand the consequences of sex and yet have unprotected relations with their guy of the moment. The law of averages catches up with them and suddenly out pops another welfare baby.
I know it was wrong and I know it should never be done again, but I understand why in Georgia (USA) in the 1930s or so, forced sterilization occurred. It was the wrong solution to the problem, but nobody wants to do the right thing, and that is have MANDATORY sex education for kids BEFORE they reach prime puberty age. And NO PARENT should have the right to opt out of that teaching regardless of religious beliefs. To be honest, the lack of such an important teaching session is evil in another way. I see it as a tacit conspiracy by certain religions to try to increase the number of sheep they will eventually shear in their flocks.
All valid points, Doc - but I think there are more than one set of circumstances which lead to absentee fathers. Just by very dint of the fact that women are the ones that actually grow and produce humans, they are left literally holding the baby - and become the focal point for all that is wrong with children today.
I agree with you re the people who go on Maury and Jeremy Kyle - but the people who go on those shows are not a statistically meaningful representation of society. Most women know who fathered their child, they just might not want to admit the truth for whatever reason.
I also don't really see why being married means there is a higher chance the father will stick around. I know many families where the parents are still together, but not married. I guess I don't see marriage as an enabler for a stable family life.
I agree with you re the people who go on Maury and Jeremy Kyle - but the people who go on those shows are not a statistically meaningful representation of society. Most women know who fathered their child, they just might not want to admit the truth for whatever reason.
I also don't really see why being married means there is a higher chance the father will stick around. I know many families where the parents are still together, but not married. I guess I don't see marriage as an enabler for a stable family life.
Bee - Nor do I take marriage as a guarantee of life style. I was thinking of it as a way to assure by legal means that someone is there to look out for the kid's interests. I tend to be knowingly inflexible on this issue because I guess I have personally seen too many kids devastated by absentee fathers. A dear friend of mind had a lovely daughter D. whose deadbeat dad left mother S. in a tough way. I saw the kind of pain that the daughter felt more than once. I tried to be nice to her but what she really needed, I couldn't give. I wasn't her dad and S. was seeing someone else for that job.
One of my step-daughters is actually adopted and is technically my niece. Her mother was married but her hubby was leaving her. Then mom got preggers while separated. Daughter M. came around. Mother L. tried to keep things together but husband S. felt he couldn't trust her due to her infidelity (never mind that HE had initiated the separation...). Then, a couple of years later, mother L. developed severe meningitis and died from it. Dad S. was already gone and had disowned M. So my wife adopted M. with her first husband. Years later, I came into the picture. But at the same time, so did biological dad B., who wanted to see his daughter and introduce her to her half-sister K. and step-mother. For some strange reason, M. told him to flip off. Eventually she decided to talk to him. They still aren't close but they aren't worlds apart any more. But you can imagine that a small child losing a father, a mother, and suddenly getting adopted by an aunt just confused the heck out of her. And it is no small wonder that she had "father figure" issues for a long time.
I understand that single parenting occurs because of loss, death, incarceration, and total knock-down drag-out incompatibility. But all too often, it is the uncaring attitude that leaves a child with half a family. Then maybe they try to find a biological father 20 years later. But in the process, we have a child who has at least potentially been damaged by such an uncaring set of parents. There is that question, "Was I not good enough for my Mommy and Daddy?" The first time I heard a child say that, I wanted to break down and cry.
But I have digressed again. My issue is that a careless lifestyle is tantamount to criminal behavior if it results in creating a child who will enter the world with an automatic set of future stresses just waiting to kick in. And it includes taking money out of my pocket for someone else's fling. Let's be clear. I do not begrudge the charitable donations to help children of indigent mothers. But I BLOODY BEDAMNED begrudge the money that the deadbeat dad isn't paying - but should be paying - for the child he helped to create. I am not happy about the mother, but it is the father who can pick up and leave his lady love dangling.
I make no claims on pre-marital celibacy. But I absolutely know without question - because I stayed in touch with my partners for long enough to be sure - that there are no little "Doc Men" floating around out there. Even if I couldn't stay with the women in question, I knew enough to observe the duty to verify that I wasn't leaving her in a difficult situation.
Perhaps I react more strongly to the irresponsibility, but many ills of USA society come from people who try to avoid responsibility. I was brought up hearing that old bromide, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." "If you can't pay, don't try to play." Various phrases regarding the importance of responsibility. Then to see the younger generation shirk responsibility just frosts my cookies.
One of my step-daughters is actually adopted and is technically my niece. Her mother was married but her hubby was leaving her. Then mom got preggers while separated. Daughter M. came around. Mother L. tried to keep things together but husband S. felt he couldn't trust her due to her infidelity (never mind that HE had initiated the separation...). Then, a couple of years later, mother L. developed severe meningitis and died from it. Dad S. was already gone and had disowned M. So my wife adopted M. with her first husband. Years later, I came into the picture. But at the same time, so did biological dad B., who wanted to see his daughter and introduce her to her half-sister K. and step-mother. For some strange reason, M. told him to flip off. Eventually she decided to talk to him. They still aren't close but they aren't worlds apart any more. But you can imagine that a small child losing a father, a mother, and suddenly getting adopted by an aunt just confused the heck out of her. And it is no small wonder that she had "father figure" issues for a long time.
I understand that single parenting occurs because of loss, death, incarceration, and total knock-down drag-out incompatibility. But all too often, it is the uncaring attitude that leaves a child with half a family. Then maybe they try to find a biological father 20 years later. But in the process, we have a child who has at least potentially been damaged by such an uncaring set of parents. There is that question, "Was I not good enough for my Mommy and Daddy?" The first time I heard a child say that, I wanted to break down and cry.
But I have digressed again. My issue is that a careless lifestyle is tantamount to criminal behavior if it results in creating a child who will enter the world with an automatic set of future stresses just waiting to kick in. And it includes taking money out of my pocket for someone else's fling. Let's be clear. I do not begrudge the charitable donations to help children of indigent mothers. But I BLOODY BEDAMNED begrudge the money that the deadbeat dad isn't paying - but should be paying - for the child he helped to create. I am not happy about the mother, but it is the father who can pick up and leave his lady love dangling.
I make no claims on pre-marital celibacy. But I absolutely know without question - because I stayed in touch with my partners for long enough to be sure - that there are no little "Doc Men" floating around out there. Even if I couldn't stay with the women in question, I knew enough to observe the duty to verify that I wasn't leaving her in a difficult situation.
Perhaps I react more strongly to the irresponsibility, but many ills of USA society come from people who try to avoid responsibility. I was brought up hearing that old bromide, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." "If you can't pay, don't try to play." Various phrases regarding the importance of responsibility. Then to see the younger generation shirk responsibility just frosts my cookies.