So, in fact, "evil" can reach a point that an oppressive regime cannot be said to be "counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere". — 180 Proof
Your example of the FDR admininstration is that on-balance the worst one could say about the regime during WW2 is that it was 'very bad but not evil'. — 180 Proof
I guess if I were forced to answer, I would say FDR is less evil than Stalin, but I also don't find it a productive question. — Saphsin
the two aren't remotely in the same ballpark.
I still do find that Freud's idea of life and death, as Eros and Thanatos useful in understanding of opposition or inherent conflict. — Jack Cummins
Tell me what distinctions you might make, if any , between evil and blame in general.
I include within the boundaries of blame the following: all feelings and expressions of blame aimed at another (or oneself in self-anger). These include: irritation, annoyance, disapproval, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, exasperation, impatience, hatred, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, ‘adaptive' anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, lazy, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, disrespectful, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal. — Joshs
My argument is that the concept of evil. particularly in its theological guises, is a more foundationalisr version of blame ,but all of the varieties I mentioned above share central structure features with evil. I’m aware of only one writer who seems to support my view of blame as a failure of understanding. Every other philosophy I know of is essentially a philosophy of blame i. that it relies on a notion of capricious and arbitrariness at the core of human intent. This takes a wide variety of forms, ranging from concepts of social influence on the individual ( Marx, Foucault, etc) to internal sources of bias and influence such as drives and emotions. — Joshs
My initial thought is that it’s a focus on individualism and/or essentialism that seems to support these philosophies of blame. The ambiguity in language regarding the identity of a disembodied perspective (‘view from nowhere’) conceals a highly variable, qualitative aspect of ‘self/not-self’ which seems to effortlessly shift perspective between interacting systems at the level of intentionality. Does that make any sense?
11h — Possibility
The one writer I’ve found who seems to share my view of blame is George Kelly.
Here’s my summary of Kelly’s position on blame: — Joshs
For me the key to the concept of blame is a belief in the
arbitrariness , capriciousness and fickleness of the qualitative variations in shifts of perspective. — Joshs
I just don't think regimes that do really bad things can be just labeled "good" (FDR goes well beyond the inevitably of doing some bad things as head of state because of lack of political capital) — Saphsin
FDR supported Mussolini and worked with racist-Southern Democrats to block anti-lynching laws. — Saphsin
Sounds like "evil" is a case-by-case, "in the eye of the beholder," "I know it when I see it" prospect for you, BC, and not an applicable principle with explicit criteria? — 180 Proof
• In a religious context, of discourse, evil denotes disobeying (i.e. to willfully sin – rebel – against) "god".
• In a nonreligious / secular context, or discourse, evil amounts to ... indifference to, or inflicting, gratuitous harm that culminates in destroying moral agency. — 180 Proof
I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. — Jack Cummins
Okay. I prefer the precision of it. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.