Is Evil necessary ?
Apologize for my idiosyncrasies. Sometimes I think evil is attractive. It's necessary in this world or else we won't be able to appreciate good. Can evil be used as an agent to do good things and protect the ones who are weak and innocent. Just a thought that ran through my mind. We try to destroy evil by punishing it. How fair is it for society to play God. Evil ones are generally strong, dominant and aggressive. By gradually weeding them out , are we creating a society of Cu*ks and puss**s(sorry for those words but couldn't find a better alternative ).
I mean even a criminal could be very intelligent and smart. And his potential gets lost when he is put to death. Of course we end up saving many lives in exchange. But rehabilitation can be an alternative solution if found to be effective.
We say bullies are bad. What if you're caught in a situation where you wanna fight against an unjust system but you feel too weak or passive to speak out. And that bully you hated so much comes around, has a change of heart and decides to fight for you and protects you. Your mind then begins to look at the whole thing in a different way. I know it sounds odd but why do we get stuck with the idea that an evil person never changes. They too have some potential that could be put to good use. There are certain qualities /traits that make such persons formidable. These traits are important in war, fights, combat and protection. We're complex creatures and we're a combination of both good and bad. I imagine the devil having a change of heart and going back and protecting the innocent instead of harming especially when the devil is shown some love. Maybe I'm fantasizing strange things. (aka Stockholm syndrome ) But Is it entirely impossible for evil to change. Is evil excessively used as a scapegoat by a society too hellbent on being righteous and sanctimonious. Is evil sensationalized and exaggerated to feed our morally superior egos. Or is our outrage for evil acts justified. Sometimes I even think that our strong vilification and resistance to evil actually causes people to find it even more appealing. It's like you resist fear and fear grows so maybe when we resist evil too much, we allow those forces to grow.
Not sure. Maybe I'm being crazy here. But I felt like good and evil are two sides of the same coin and there could be a possibility that the outrage we experience is a result of deep social conditioning. And if we weren't conditioned that way, evil would have been diluted and never existed the way it does. Reformation would then be easier. But Who knows..... . Food for thought.
Are we losing more through punishment. Is there a way to retain some of the good or transform evil into something protective, strong and formidable but not harmful.
I mean even a criminal could be very intelligent and smart. And his potential gets lost when he is put to death. Of course we end up saving many lives in exchange. But rehabilitation can be an alternative solution if found to be effective.
We say bullies are bad. What if you're caught in a situation where you wanna fight against an unjust system but you feel too weak or passive to speak out. And that bully you hated so much comes around, has a change of heart and decides to fight for you and protects you. Your mind then begins to look at the whole thing in a different way. I know it sounds odd but why do we get stuck with the idea that an evil person never changes. They too have some potential that could be put to good use. There are certain qualities /traits that make such persons formidable. These traits are important in war, fights, combat and protection. We're complex creatures and we're a combination of both good and bad. I imagine the devil having a change of heart and going back and protecting the innocent instead of harming especially when the devil is shown some love. Maybe I'm fantasizing strange things. (aka Stockholm syndrome ) But Is it entirely impossible for evil to change. Is evil excessively used as a scapegoat by a society too hellbent on being righteous and sanctimonious. Is evil sensationalized and exaggerated to feed our morally superior egos. Or is our outrage for evil acts justified. Sometimes I even think that our strong vilification and resistance to evil actually causes people to find it even more appealing. It's like you resist fear and fear grows so maybe when we resist evil too much, we allow those forces to grow.
Not sure. Maybe I'm being crazy here. But I felt like good and evil are two sides of the same coin and there could be a possibility that the outrage we experience is a result of deep social conditioning. And if we weren't conditioned that way, evil would have been diluted and never existed the way it does. Reformation would then be easier. But Who knows..... . Food for thought.
Are we losing more through punishment. Is there a way to retain some of the good or transform evil into something protective, strong and formidable but not harmful.
Comments (41)
I think you're fibbing about the 'sometimes'. Learn who to listen to.
You are not alone in this. Many people have found evil quite attractive at times.
Quoting Rosalina
Can you appreciate the goodness of a beautiful flower WITHOUT having to wade through a bed of poison ivy and nettles? I bet you can. Can you enjoy waking up in the morning and feeling great without having to be very sick the day before? I bet you can. We appreciate good things because of their nature, not because bad things provide a contrast.
True enough: Sometimes bad things improve and it is a great relief. It's great when a bad headache is gone. It's very nice when we have finally cleaned up our home and gotten all our chores done. It's good when the car has been fixed and we can drive it again. But headaches, dirty houses, and cars that don't run are not necessary.
Quoting Rosalina
Sometimes we punish evil. It's entirely fair for society to do that. Playing God? If you want to bring God into this, God gave us laws (the Ten Commandments, the various laws in Leviticus and elsewhere) to help us live together. It's our job to see that everyone follows the law. That's one of the things that society is for.
"Evil" doesn't operate as an implacable agent in the world. Evil is something that people do. We try to reduce evil behavior through punishment, education, rewards for good behavior, and so forth.
Sometimes people who are strong, dominant and aggressive perform evil acts, and sometimes they perform good acts. "Strong, dominant and aggressive" aren't traits of evil; they are just personality traits. Some very good people who do very good things are strong, dominant and aggressive. Some very bad people who do very bad things are weak, sneaky, weasels.
"Cu*ks and puss**s"... We're all grown up here, you can spell the words out. Maybe you were looking for "cringing weaklings"? btw, what is a 'cu*ks'?
Quoting Rosalina
A criminal may well be very intelligent and smart--but usually not so much. I'm against capital punishment, but one reason pro-death people put forward is that criminals' potential for evil needs to be terminated.
Quoting Rosalina
Real evil requires all the resistance we can muster. Some examples:
Genocide
Regimes that terrorize their people
Criminal enterprises which cause death and injury
Theft or destruction of public goods
Corruption in business and government
Abuse of persons
Murder, rape, torture...
True, some people crusade for causes because they are sanctimonious hypocrites. And sure, people who got stuck in the juvenile stage of development might find the forbidden attractive merely because it is forbidden.
Quoting Rosalina
What we need to do is guide the footsteps of evil doers back onto the paths of righteous behavior.
Maybe you need to come to terms with what is meant when we say that something is Evil. I think you point at it a couple of times in what you wrote.
I don't think Evil is attractive (except maybe to Utilitarians), but I do think that Evil is a necessary part of what it means to be human, that we would not be able to appreciate what is Good without what is Evil.
I like the coin analogy, since one side of the coin is not possible without the other, yet they never meet.
The problem with what is Good and what is Evil, lies in how we culturally, normativley, think about these terms. What one culture categorizes as Evil another categorizes as Good, this is not conducive to making and absolute determinations that this is Evil and that is Good.
>:O >:O >:O
I think that is pedantic and absurd. A person ought to be able to express themselves as they see fit, not according to any strictures or lack thereof. The deciding factors ought to include meaning, what is generally understood, and their feeling comfortable with what is expressed.
Do you use the "N" word much? Is it because you are not comfortable using it, or maybe you are black and you are comfortable using it.
However, your question about 'cu'ks' seems on point.
I am unsure whether you understand 'evil' and I believe that you may need to clarify this a bit more, as I am under the assumption you are speaking more of a masculine aggression rather than evil, a dominant figure that has the strength to fight and commit immoral acts and yet still has the heart to protect and even love, which is perhaps what you may find attractive. All women find this attractive, it is instinctual. However, a bully that shows remorse is not evil, on the contrary showing remorse itself is the very fibre of moral behaviour or 'good' - mistakes that one becomes aware of is not the same as a sociopath who does not feel empathy or sense any wrongdoing.
From a Kantian perspective, there are several different levels of evil, initially starting from a weakness in motivation or will (p*ssy is how you put it), a cowardly person who would follow (someone who would watch or gang up in groups, insult or attack someone weaker then them, turn a blind eye to something bad even if they have the ability to help). They prioritise moral choices depending on the situation.
The second are those that pretend to be good (the worst kind in my opinion), an appearance where they are able to adequately present themselves as kind and solicitous when in fact there is a deliberate interest in gaining something even if it is merely the favour of others, a type of 'selling' as they market themselves to an audience that buy their deceptively moral behaviour when they have neither the mind nor the genuine heart to be virtuous. And the third is deliberate evil, someone conscious of moral laws and values who deliberately violates and establishes immoral principles of action.
The point is that evil itself is nothing more than our will, a choice and how far we can choose to will evil maxims. This is the same for our will to being moral. It is probably why the following Socratic quote is very real:
The intent of punishment need not be a desire to eliminate it, but simply to offer the natural consequence for the bad act. That is, punishment need serve a deterrent function, but it can be a just dessert.Quoting Rosalina
This is an attempt to classify evil as good, which overlooks instances where evil is not at all good, where there is no silver lining, and where the net outcome is negative.
Are you a spokesperson for all women or are you just telling us of the sort of bad boy you adore?
Cu*ks is Cucks and pussies. Those were the words spelled out.
We try to eliminate criminals through punishment. However we rarely try to look at it through the angle of restoration and rehabilitation.
It might be pedantic, but I don't see absurdity. I'll drink to expression as people see fit, but I was mercifully responding to a cry for help:
Quoting Rosalina
No I don't
I'm wondering if evil can sometimes be good.
Cuck is a man who's a little bitch. Contrary to the beliefs of the liberal leaning crowd trying to explain something popularized by the conservatives, cuck is used by many races for someone who is spineless and IS derived from cuckold.
Her cuck boyfriend watched as a man flirted and felt up his girl in front of him.
She cheated on him and told him it would never happen again, he's such a cuck to believe that.
I'm an old man, and keeping up with the latest slang strains my already full memory.
N for nigger, you mean? I'm a W.A.S.P. I would use 'nigger' more, but it upsets white people so much. We've gotten to the point where one can't even say niggardly (meaning an ungenerous person) in public. I'd think twice about ordering a negroni cocktail (named after Count Camillo Negroni) in an all white bar. I might be stabbed to death with swizzle sticks.
Yes, that's true, and we should practice restorative justice and rehabilitation.
I think that's more the social status and role of evil than actual evilness.
Looks like a bee but is evil. They can sting multiple times and are more aggressive than bees. They're also predators.
I know my classifications of bees, doggos and other animals so if you have an assignment for biology, don't be afraid to ask for help.
The word is derived from the cuckoo bird, who supposedly invaded other bird's nests, pushed aside its eggs, and laid its own eggs in the nest, causing the other bird to unknowingly care for the egg and eventually raise the cuckoo bird.
A cuckold then would be a man who would unknowingly allow another man to invade his eggs (which are conveniently located in his wife's womb), and eventually raise that other man's child, thinking it his own.
Enough of the history, and on to the perversion. The common use of the term applies to the knowing cuckold, who derives masochistic pleasure in seeing his wife sexually satisfied by another man, while being denied the same access as the invader. It's a humiliation fetish.
As our good poster used the term, she was referencing men who she found less than masculine, like those who were weak and feminine (i.e. pussies) and those who couldn't sexually satisfy their partners (i.e. cuckolds).
Then it's not evil.
You have a non-waspish name.
In response, I say: does there exist a possible world in which evil exists?
If yes, then evil is not necessary.
If no, then evil is necessary.
My gut says there is such a possible world, as there appears to be no contradiction in existence, even our own, containing evil. :P
I don't understand this analysis. There exists an actual world where evil exists, so why ask if there is a possible world where it might exist?
If there exists a possible world where evil does not exist, then evil is obviously not necessary. Is that your question?
The last sentence made no sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
The choice of words one uses to describe inner conflicts may be a subtle but critical point. I am referring mostly to connotations and possible associated meanings here, rather than strict dictionary definitions (denotations). The word "evil" (as technically accurate as it may be) may possibly not be the most helpful here, as it is a loaded term.
Speaking for myself, the word evil (or Evil) has associations of being extremely powerful, perhaps nearly irresistible or unbeatable, along with being related and similar to the word "Devil". As powerful more or less as "Good", as though it is some kind of dark Dionysian counterbalance to the Apollonian light. Or that evil is the inevitable Yin to the holy Yang, or something. (Both of which it definitely is NOT. But of course evil and wrong will almost always quickly lead to negative and painful consequences. This is a most important ethical and social issue, by all means.)
Personally though, whenever i have thought this way (that good and evil are somehow equally powerful or necessary) and acted upon it, i have gone astray into confusion. At times, there has been almost an obsession concerning evil/devil. Perhaps this is understandable, given the current world circumstances. (Disclaimer: this is NOT meant as a theological statement, affirmation, or denial). But as someone once said, "where attention goes, energy flows". I find it clearer and more effective to use words like wrong, bad, mistake, error, imbalance. They seem to have less baggage than the word "evil". Just a preference one may or may not find useful.
Breaking down the "wrong" into its component ingredients of ignorance, greed, and hatred, as Buddhism does for example, may shed light on how to recognize and neutralize it within oneself. Since most would agree that we can only control ourselves... and often even that is difficult. This is not meant to downplay the seriousness of the issue at all. It is meant more as a strategy to embrace the good in one's life.
One could compare the difference between right and wrong to two people cooking their dinner. One person is cooking it at an optimal temperature, and it is hardly noticeable except for a pleasant aroma. The other person cranked up the heat way too high, and there is smoke and flames which triggers the alarm. A real panic which naturally grabs the attention. An error in judgment leading to danger, but the basic elements are not essentially different than the first case. (just my two cents worth)
Sorry, I completely wasn't thinking and didn't put a sarcasm indicator. It is really just supposed to be stupud and take the thread title literally in a modal logical sense- "necessary" means "is true in all possible worlds".
Example: W.A.S.P., Dago, JAP
Who the hell thought there was anything derogatory about being a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant? We are the apex of creation, the paragon of animals, the Supreme Beings. We used to run America! Alas...
True, but sometimes a tomato is too rotten to eat, even if there's still some color left. Question is, are inmates ever too rotten to rehabilitate? I think for some, yes. For the severely mentally ill, say, who aren't even criminals, it's a question of how much can I save, and what can't I save. A rotting tomato can't become fresh again, but there's sometimes the possibility of getting good out of it still!
Quoting Rosalina
Evil cannot in itself be good, but I do think that evil can bring about the good. Then again, I think it depends on how you define evil, and whether evil causes the good or if evil merely facilitates a future moral dilemma that comes out good, but that would not have been possible were evil not the choice made prior.
Were we to devise new insults and use fruits and vegetables for slurs, which ones would we use?
So and so is such a __________________ for females, __________________ for males.
What a pile of compost!
You are a melonkopf.
You, Senator, are a rotten, stinking potato. (potatoes stink when they rot)
If you want to pass as a vegetable, you'll have to tone that fruitiness down.
Top banana
You don't amount to a hill of beans (about 3 beans)
A pain in the asparagus
No, no, no. My mind went to a completely different idea of fill in the blanks. I will delete my vegetable reference since it was an error.
Fred couldn't help beating his son. His son couldn't help lighting the fire. The judge couldn't help putting Fred Jr. in the slammer. It's just a Rube Goldberg machine, with elements of "cuck" and "pussy" placed in the chain for aesthetic affect.
An artist needs to get on this ASAP. Build a RG machine that determines court verdicts of cardboard cutouts.
:-O Oh dear, seeing that this is so disgusting, no wonder you know about it!! >:O
Quoting Hanover
Well, the term I knew is "cuckservative", and it describes a conservative just like you Hanover - like John Kasich, Jeb Bush, that ilk ;)
Italians are into vegetable slurs, must be part of their agrarian heritage. I wonder if they have enough to make a Sampler...eggplants, cucumbers, fennel...these are the ones my grandmother taught me.
Perhaps an exaggeration, but I was trying to show that our OP is really talking about the construct of masculine aggression rather than evil. I am far from liking bad boys I can assure you, but we all admire a protective strength and loyalty in a man, someone who may have the capacity to undertake the so-called 'evil' tendencies the OP discusses while at the same time remaining moral and loving. I just assume that her understanding of evil is dubious and you yourself agree when you say then it's not evil.
One theory from sociology is that deviance serves a function: everybody gets reminded of the consequences of deviance, therefore social control is maintained and society is able to continue to function and stay together.
I guess, therefore, that you could say that it is possible that evil is the most extreme form of deviance that serves that aforementioned useful, important social function.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're trying to articulate an intuition you have, but I'm not sure if you're saying it the right way. You seem to vacillate between the idea of "is evil good? sometimes it's attractive", and "why do we punish instead of rehabilitate? Isn't evil necessary for good to also exist?" Evil being somehow "good" and rehabilitating criminals are very different ideas.
I think the second idea here is a good thought, and worth discussing. I've made similar arguments here at various times that tend to be ignored for some reason. The yin yang relationship bears itself out over wide swaths of the human condition; apophatic vs. kataphatic theology, esoteric vs. exoteric mysticism, the recurrence of diametric political factions, the master slave dialectic, continental vs. analytic, dominant vs. submissive personalities, male vs. female...in my view it's a mystical concept, these opposite poles, and good vs. evil is really the archetype that "overarches" them all. So what I'm reading in your post is a natural intuition for this yin yang relationship, but I think you need to expand on what you mean that evil can be good or attractive. The only way I can see that working is for good and evil to be superseded and overcome in a way, as in Hinduism (via union with Brahman), but I don't think that's what you were thinking. Even (and especially) in Hinduism, a strict moral code accompanies the spiritual quest for Moksha.
--Rosalina
I kind of know what you mean. When I was a kid and Darth Vader said to Luke "..you have no idea of the true power of the dark side!", I felt like if I was Luke I would have pulled up a chair/grabbed a soda and asked him to tell me more about what he wants to tell me. :D
Since your a person who might value the "virtues" of being evil I suggest you consider getting and/or reading a book called "Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil is its Own Reward" which costs around $10-$15 on Amazon. It talks about things like how after so many years of tradition heroes posturing and spewing forth things like why kiddies should do their best to be "good", modern superheroes such as "Deadpool" are really nothing more than villains or anti-heroes who are sort of disguised as heroes but act more like the misunderstood bad guys of the past. Also it wouldn't hurt to read up on Niccolo Machiavelli and Machiavellianism to get a better grasp of how from a philosophical standpoint how evil can be good or at least useful.
Also it may be useful to note that when you criticize the flaws and weaknesses of people trying to be "good" your really working from another moral paradigm where weakness is a sin and strength (even sometimes if it can be ham handed/brutish/bullying/etc) is instead a virtue. Under such a paradigm it might be wiser to ask if weakness and the other things you see as sins are really needed.
As a person who is partial nihilism, I really think that what we think of as morality is merely about what is useful and/or not useful to us. To really think we have access to objective morality is kind of silly, other than perhaps to maintain social order and keep some people behaving who might not if they realize that what is going on is "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it".
Hopefully this answers some of your questions. :)