What metric or criterion do you use to detect evil? — Average

I think it's something like 'the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others', usually born out of resentment or hatred, which is usually born of out of a refusal to recognize and correct the defects in one's own culture or self. I don't know. Thoughts?

I personally think that words like evil can be used by people to refer to whatever they happen to dislike for whatever reasons they find convenient at the moment. — Average

I agree. I think it's a terrible thing to cheapen the word through such usage.

I think it's something like 'the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others', usually born out of resentment or hatred, which is usually born of out of a refusal to recognize and correct the defects in one's own culture or self. I don't know. Thoughts? — Theorem

Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? I personally don’t think that it would be evil. Maybe you mean innocent people though and I don’t want to misconstrue or misinterpret your ideas.

the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others — Theorem

At what point does suffering become “gratuitous”? Or what is necessary for suffering to be “gratuitous”? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge.

Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? — Average

I don't know. I think so. Should we put serial killers to death? Yes, probably. Should we torture them mercilessly before doing so? I'm not convinced it's a good thing to stoke that fire within ourselves, giving expression to the malevolent impulses that we're supposedly condemning and protecting ourselves against.

At what point does suffering become gratuitous? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge. — Average

Yes, basically. I don't know the exact point at which suffering becomes gratuitous, but it's usually pretty clear when you encounter it. Suffering is often necessary for growth and for meaning in life. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about actions that are taken such that the primary goal is simply to make the 'other' suffer (perhaps as much as possible) with no consideration for their health, growth, etc., etc.

Should we torture them mercilessly before doing so? — Theorem

I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice. But I understand your position on the subject and if you’d prefer to avoid this kind of discussion I completely understand.

I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice — Average

I agree that it would probably act as a deterrent. I also agree that it would more fully satisfy the retributive impulses in (some of) those who have been wronged, prevent blood feuds, etc. That said, I have major qualms with granting the State the power to torture. I worry about false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power. Generally speaking, I don't want to live in a world where most people consider torture to be a legitimate form of punishment. If anything, I feel we should be pushing in the other direction. The world is brutal enough as it is without encouraging that kind of sentiment amongst the general population. But maybe I'm just being naive.

That said, I have major qualms with granting the State the power to torture. I worry about false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power. — Theorem

The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment.

If anything, I feel we should be pushing in the other direction. — Theorem

What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”?

The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. — Average

This seems like an over-simplification. There are usually plenty of internal and external forces constraining the actions of the state. Widely held cultural taboos (such as those against the use of torture) can make it less likely (though certainly not impossible) for the state to engage in such actions.

As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment. — Average

To me it's the 'merciless torture' part that makes the difference here. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where an innocent person can't (normally) be mercilessly tortured due to an accidental miscarriage of justice, especially when you consider that the frequency of accidental wrongful convictions in the US has been estimated at 2 - 10%. Is the merciless torture of even one innocent person by the state worth a % reduction in violent crime? My gut says "no".

What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”? — Average

Away from cruelty and brutality.

Widely held cultural taboos (such as those against the use of torture) can make it less likely (though certainly not impossible) for the state to engage in such actions. — Theorem

I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret.

especially when you consider that the frequency of accidental wrongful convictions in the US has been estimated at 2 - 10%. — Theorem

I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy.

Is the merciless torture of even one innocent person by the state worth a % reduction in violent crime? — Theorem

Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it?

I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism. — Xtrix

Where do you think that 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' come from?

Where do you think that 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' come from? — Theorem

Human beings.

But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature?

It seems to me that a key problem for change is the view that the bad guys have already won and the situation is hopeless. That worldview seems to me to be one of capitalism's greatest protective factors. — Tom Storm

I agree with this 100%. It’s like a despair— a kind of defeatism. Why bother? Nothing we can do —it’s hopeless.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.

Which is exactly why the push for “individualism” is so handy for those in power. It’s about freedom, individuality, liberty, etc. — and that all sounds pretty good! Until you realize it’s yet another narrative, another bedtime story to lull us to sleep and keep us voting for the rich assholes who don’t give a damn about any of us.

I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret. — Average

I partially disagree. Being forced to do something in secret is itself a constraint. It's usually a lot harder to do something in secret, especially if it's complex or large in scope in which case the probability of being 'found out' goes up exponentially. When information gets leaked the state will have to spend additional resources trying to cover it up, and sometimes they won't succeed. And that can cause real problems for the state, especially if that information falls into the hands of rival political groups, or other enemy states who can then use it to turn their own populations against them, or to build coalitions of other states against them, etc.

I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy — Average

I don't doubt that this occurs, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything that occurs in the US criminal justice system qualifies as 'corruption'.

Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it? — Average

Since I live in the US I'd probably start by arguing on legal grounds. "Cruel and unusual" punishment is (theoretically) prohibited by the Constitution. On consequentialist grounds, I might query the value of torture as a deterrent over an above to the death penalty and the 'barbarizing' effect that the legitimization of torture has on the wider culture and on international relations. On metaphysical grounds I might try to argue on the basis of basic human dignity. On purely moral grounds I might try to argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and highlight the moral hypocrisy of engaging in the very practice that we're condemning. Those are some of my initial thoughts.

But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature? — Xtrix

No. But cupcakes are little different to philosophical outlooks, which are direct expressions of human thought, feeling and action.

On metaphysical grounds I might try to argue on the basis of basic human dignity. — Theorem

Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer?

Since I live in the US I'd probably start by arguing on legal grounds. "Cruel and unusual" punishment is (theoretically) prohibited by the Constitution. — Theorem

If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment.

On consequentialist grounds, I might query the value of torture as a deterrent over an above to the death penalty and the 'barbarizing' effect that the legitimization of torture has on the wider culture and on international relations. — Theorem

I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities.

On purely moral grounds I might try to argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and highlight the moral hypocrisy of engaging in the very practice that we're condemning. — Theorem

The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty.

But cupcakes are little different to philosophical outlooks, which are direct expressions of human thought, feeling and action. — Theorem

And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa.

Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view).

Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer? — Average

Yes. They are still human, right?

If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment. — Average

I don't see forced labor as intrinsically 'cruel and unusual', though it can certainly become so.

I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities. — Average

Barbarous (adj) - savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal

The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty. — Average

How do you draw the line between 'guilty' and 'innocent'?

And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa. — Xtrix

True.

Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view). — Xtrix

My original point was that human beings have been doing terrible things for a very long time. I'm not advocating for defeatism or cynicism. We should try to make things better, starting with ourselves and working outward from there.

I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be.

Yes. They are still human, right? — Theorem

I don’t think so.

Barbarous (adj) - savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal — Theorem

The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that.

How do you draw the line between 'guilty' and 'innocent'? — Theorem

I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty.

I don’t think so. — Average

Biology says otherwise.

The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that. — Average

So, let's move in the other direction.

I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty. — Average

The predator can become the prey.

Biology says otherwise. — Theorem

I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. The nazis are a good example. But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas.

The predator can become the prey. — Theorem

I wouldn’t shed a tear if the predators of this world became someone’s prey. But I think what you’re trying to get at is the question of whether or not they would then be classified as innocent. Maybe I should revise my metric because If someone is running around with a hammer savagely beating people to death and someone comes along and takes that hammer away from them and then proceeded to give them a taste of their own medicine I have a hard time believing that this would be a bad thing. So maybe it’s not as simple as predator and prey. Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence.