Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread

Is there such a thing as "necessary evil?"

  • Yes.

  • No.

  • I don't know


Results are only viewable after voting.
I agree the "evil" is a label, and because it's so relative we will never live in a world where everyone adheres to a standard of moral law, everyone will have their own version of what's "ok"

so in order to prevent such a system from falling into complete chaos and anarchy we develop societies in which some evils must exist to ensure stability, imagine if there were never weapon's created, there would be no way to make a large group of people follow any form of law, human society would never exist
 
I agree the "evil" is a label, and because it's so relative we will never live in a world where everyone adheres to a standard of moral law, everyone will have their own version of what's "ok"

so in order to prevent such a system from falling into complete chaos and anarchy we develop societies in which some evils must exist to ensure stability, imagine if there were never weapon's created, there would be no way to make a large group of people follow any form of law, human society would never exist

Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?


By whom?

Psalm 137:7-9
hose Edomites,
and remember the ruin of Jerusalem,
That day they yelled out,
”Wreck it, smash it to bits!”
And you, Babylonians—ravagers!
A reward to whoever gets back at you
for all you’ve done to us;
Yes, a reward to the one who grabs your babies
and smashes their heads on the rocks!
 
That really does depend on context, Tg, which I think is the thing being alluded to in the past few comments here.

All of us here at MT (I hope) would say it was evil but there are still societal conflicts around the world where such things happen and those that carry them out do not consider themselves 'evil' - the danger of indoctrination whether it be tribal, national or religious is that it can make the clearly immoral justifiable. That's a different concept to a necessary evil.
 
that's a cute response, I don't believe anyone here said ALL or even ANY form of evil is necessary, so that's obviously not one, but there are some, a necessary evil is letting someone have power knowing that they'll misuse it, but also knowing that the stability will prevent atrocities like mass genocide, a necessary evil is having one man killed so that 10 can live,

the bottom line is that I'm showing that there are shades of grey, and that's an obvious fact of reality, the perspective that there's a black and white line that nothing anyone can deem is bad should be done is naive, what shade of grey is too dark is moot, and I'm sure we'd all find we pretty much agree on it
 
Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Yes I can. Rio. It happens all the time. Next question. :)
 
"evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence."

If you don't know evil when you see it, I think you are over rationalizing.

People who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors say this also. They see such actions as self-defense the same way you might see shooting a rapist or a mugger who was trying to harm some passerby. Do you agree that they are fighting evil?

That's the point. Everyone decides what evil is, and everyone else's definition is wrong. Evil is 'common sense' except that we don't all share the same definition.

"Everyone has some common definitions of evil that we can all agree on." Nope. We don't.

And evil itself? No such thing, except in our minds.
 
Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?

But that's just it...a hundred of their children. It's all tribal.
 
Evil is defined by people. People do not define themselves as evil. Ergo, this does not happen.

Did the people who lived in societies that practiced human sacrifice consider themselves evil? No. Would we consider human sacrifice evil? Yes.



If I did, I'd be promptly tossed off of MT for good, so I will refrain. Suffice to say, the society that I live in permits some behavior which I consider evil. Most do not agree with me. Therefore, I obey the law and put up with it. As do you. We just have different definitions of evil.

Hmmmm. What is moral courage? How do you know if a person has it?
 
Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

A wedding party in Afghanistan.
 
Around here it is a sort of implicit understanding through common usage that the Wiki is a useful starting point for research by the reader, Dez. It's not taken as an authoritative source but as a shorthand resource that, depending on supporting sources, can be refuted or agreed with by the reader as he or she is inclined.
 
fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage

"Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"

I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide
 
I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide

Again, it's a construct-in some of the tribal societies of Borneo, nothing could be more moral-or courageous-than leading a raid on a rival village and taking the heads of one's enemies in revenge-and that's only the mopst immediate example that comes to mind; I won't even get into what my ancestors might have thought of as "morally courageous," rather than, say-evil.:lfao:

In all seriousness, in spite of the insistence of some, morals are not absolute-they are societal constructs, and entirely arbitrary. What is defined as "moral" in one society is clearly "immoral" for another-a source of much conflict throughout the history of cross-cultural contact. Just as clearly, what one society calls "evil" is often seen as "good" in another.
 
fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage

"Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"

I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide

That's why I did not want to be put in that box. I don't believe in it, but I was asked what it is. So I cited Wikpedia.
 
An intriguing question and one worthy of discussion. Perhaps a separate companion thread to this one would be useful in which the nature of 'moral courage' is discussed? Or do we think that the two subjects are closely enough intertwined that we can discuss them as sides of the same coin? I can certainly see that for a 'good' person the two concepts of necessary evil and moral courage are related.
 
Back
Top