From: jtem01@gmail.com
On 1/16/26 3:24 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 2026-01-16 12:03, JTEM wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Calling evil something that can simply be
>> > "defeated" assumes it is a single, concrete
>> > thing.
>>
>> I have to agree that this doesn't make sense at
>> all.
>>
>> What if any criteria does something have to meet
>> to qualify as evil?
>>
>> I think that...
>>
>> #1. Intent.
>>
>> You had to intend to do whatever it is that we want
>> to call evil. Obviously hitting a patch of black
>> ice and skidding into a young family on the sidewalk
>> is bad but, did you even know they were there? Did
>> you even know there was black ice present?
>
> I disagree:
>
> I think evil is less about intent and more about
> the experience it creates. Hitting a patch of black
> ice and skidding into a family is clearly horrific
> for those involved. Even if the driver did not
> intend harm, the event still causes fear, pain, and
> suffering.
>
> Evil, in this sense, is measured by the depth of
> impact on the victim. Intent can amplify evil, but
> the core of it lies in the experience of harm and
> distress itself. Accidents can feel evil, even if no
> one “meant” them.
>
>>
>> #2. Knowledge.
>>
>> You had to know the harmful nature of the act and
>> wanted that harm to result, or at least never cared
>> either way.
>
> Evil involves a combination of intent, knowledge, and
> impact. An act intended to harm can be morally wrong
> even if it accidentally benefits the victim, because
> the actor aimed for harm. Knowledge matters too: if
> someone knew, or reasonably should have known, that
> their action could cause suffering, they bear moral
> responsibility. Ultimately, the experience of the
> victim shapes the perception of evil, but intent and
> awareness influence how blame is assigned.
>
>>
>> NOTE: Back when we had journalism, the standard was
>> "Known or should have known." Saying "I didn't know"
>> was never a defense if it was deemed reasonable to
>> assume that the information was readily obtainable, or
>> needed to be obtained FIRST regardless of how difficult
>> it would be to secure it.
>
>>
>> #3. Results/Potential
>>
>> If I sit in the grass, take careful aim then shoot
>> someone in the head just as a Thrill Kill that would
>> likely meet anyone's definition of evil. But what if
>> I miss? What if you never even knew that I shot at
>> you? Nobody was harmed, right? So was it evil?
>>
>> I would believe "Yes."
>
> Attempted harm without actual impact shows intent, not
> experience of evil. Shooting and missing may reveal a
> malicious mindset, but if no one suffers or even knows,
> the event causes no real harm. Evil, understood as
> experienced suffering, does not exist in this case. At
> most, it reflects moral guilt or dangerous character,
> not evil as it is lived or felt by a victim.
That sounds like the Protestant concept of evil and sin,
where it all comes from Satan. It's external, according
to them... "The devil made me do it!"
I don't think evil in the result but the person.
I avoided saying it but I do not believe that "Evil" is
a force. I think it can only be describing people or
perhaps the conscious decisions of people.
Lightening can strike a tree, the tree can fall on a
baby carriage but that doesn't make the lightening or
the tree evil. It anyone did anything wrong -- and there
is by no means any guarantee that someone had to do
anything wrong -- it was taking a baby out for a stroll
when there was a potential for lightening...
But they wouldn't necessarily know that.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
