How does history define evil?

[MBuzzy]

And there aren't evil governments. There are different kinds. Differences can go to that level where it contradicts our ideas about how humans should live. My favourite example is ancient Athens, the hyped democracy with slavery, aggressive wars, slave hunting as a sport, ignoring and sometimes killing "low quality" newborns and so on. When differences reach a certain level or/and the government can't take care of things reliably the inhabitants start revolting, nearby countries get angry at the government's actions and the government goes into history as evil. Hitler's dictatorship undeniably reached this level at a time but wasn't at that level when it started.

I thought that this quote by Ahriman was very insightful and interesting. The analogy here is a very good point. There have been many governments, states, organizations, etc which have done horrible things but have not been defined as evil by history. Many of those governments also have not started that way. No one says "I want to be an evil dictator when I grow up" yet we still have them - and most of them believe that what they are doing it right.

Right and wrong is very relative. So what characteristics determine whether a government or group will go down in history as evil or an example?

 

[MBuzzy]

One thing that comes to mind is the question..."If you had met Hitler when he was 12 years old, knowing what would happen - would you kill him?"

 

[Empty Hands]

Right and wrong is very relative. So what characteristics determine whether a government or group will go down in history as evil or an example?

You have to stand out from your neighbors, due to that relativity. The Athens example is a good one, since all of those evils practiced by the Athenians were also practiced by all the societies around them. Also, I wouldn't say that the structure of the Athenian government made these abuses more likely. Thus, no evil. I still wouldn't want to be a helot in Sparta though.

 

[Kacey]

History is written, generally, by the winners, not the losers... and it is generally the losers who determine that the winner was evil. Had Hitler won, it's unlikely we'd be having this discussion, unless he or his regime was overthrown later.

As far as Athens, while there are pieces of the Athenian culture that were identified later, by other cultures, as being evil, they were within the normal range of behavior for their time; many of the surrounding cultures had slaves who were treated as badly or worse, but fewer had ways for slaves to earn their freedom (Athens did - freed slaves had all the same options as those born free); the geographic location in which Athens existed was within an aggressive and warlike area (so there were those who were warlike, and those who were conquered); the killing of "low-quality" newborns, while anathema to us today, was a survival tactic for the culture, as until you have a society with sufficient excess to support those "low-quality" newborns when they grow up to become "low-quality" and non-self-supporting adults, the choice becomes whether to kill them early, or wait until they die later, having used valuable resources in the meantime. It sucks - don't think I'm saying that I consider it a viable method today - but it was a matter of survival at the time, to withhold succor from those who would not survive, or who would survive only as non-producing members of society, which that society could not afford.

 

[Ahriman]

The winners write history or more precisely, winners write the history which gets accepted by the world. Of course winning sides change with time - the reason why our versions of the Ottoman campaigns are the accepted ones. The losers are almost always demonized to some extent, especially if they are fully or nearly fully eradicated. With time passing by, the victors start exploring history and under a government which allows speaking against it the not-so-nice pieces of it's history emerge.
...
Of course if that kind of behaviour is widely accepted in that era things change considerably. Killing others based on for example religion is in most cases frowned upon now, but think about history... witch hunts (belongs here even as most of the victims weren't witches), inquisitions, free killing of heretics and so on were things not really considered bad. A king effectively expanding his country's size and it's financials was a hero. (some of them even became saints and most of them reached their goals through violence nearly unimaginable to us modern people)
...
After all, I don't really believe in absolute good or evil. Way too subjective things. There are winners and losers, effective and ineffective methods, methods which can be agreed with by all and methods with which only the victorious can agree with. If the Nazis won the war, everyone would be happy - I mean everyone who survives. Those who would disagree would die, thus no one could say it's an evil system.

 

[CoryKS]

Athens? I thought it was Sparta that did these things. Anyway...

The culture that forms around a civilization exists for one purpose only: to benefit the adherents of that culture. It has no obligation to those outside the civilization. It is the operating system which keeps the civilization running, and the only factor that can be used to determine if the culture is good is whether the civilization is prospering.

It's difficult to assess that a culture is "doing it wrong" unless you have a similar civilization under similar conditions with which to compare it. We have a large, prosperous civilization surrounded by friendly nations, and have the resources to provide for a wider range of defects or behavioral problems. The ancient Greeks has a smaller population, were not united by nationality, and were beset on all sides by enemies. They needed their people to be fully-functional and willing to kill. Were they evil? To our eyes it's evil to do things like drop babies off a cliff, but the real question is, did these behaviors help maintain the civilization? I don't know the answer to that.

More recently, we hear the cliche that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." That is true because a man may who attacks another civilization may be working for the benefit of his civilization to the detriment of the other. But a person from the civilization which he has attacked is under no obligation to consider his viewpoint when responding to the man and the civilization for which he is working. Who is evil? Both will consider the other to be evil. As Kacey pointed out, whoever is victorious gets to write the final draft.

 

[Ahriman]

Athens did these as well... if you're interested, I can dig up the Athenian names for said activities, but I'm a bit tired now - paraffin flaming and evaporating near my face for hours then carving for hours again tasks my brain.

But a person from the civilization which he has attacked is under no obligation to consider his viewpoint when responding to the man and the civilization for which he is working

True, but don't forget that understanding given viewpoint could possibly help in solving problems with less blood spilt. Which is not a thing to consider if either or both of the sides think genocide is acceptable.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

This thread is why I had a hard time understanding when people come up with terms like basic human rights, universal rights, rights of man, etc.

Unless you have an objective viewpoint, which is impossible for humans to have, all of these rights are conventions of man, and have no intrinsic value unto themselves.

So then, how do people then dare to blast others for their viewpoints if they disagree. A religious reason becomes just as valid as a so-called natural right in which one believes. A notable example would be the many-sided arguments regarding gay marriage.