Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Is Evil, evil?


Ok, let me start by saying that I need to do a little "lead into" for this blog topic - just to make sure that we're all clear on the actual topic - "Is Evil, evil?"  So I ask that each of you do me the courtesy of reading what I have written here prior to posting your comments.

Several years ago I heard a speaker while in college speak about the importance of properly analyzing history.  The reason that I remember the core of his speech was that I found the topic to be interesting and the questions he raised to be thought provoking; and as most of you know, I love thought-provoking conversations.... the deeper, the better!  To my "sick" academic mind, a good evening would be to have a bunch of people sitting around and engaging in a great discussion on "deep" topics.  Anyway, moving on...

The professor was Dr. Demos of Yale University (btw, one of the most interesting history professors I ever had) and he was stressing how it is important for students of history, professors of history, research writers, etc., to learn to analyze history as history.  In other words, not give what they may conceive as clear-cut labels.  According to Dr. Demos, when we do that, we enter into a "wrong way to attempt to understand history."  History, of itself, has no unambiguously good actors or bad.  There are just actors.  In fact, good and evil should not factor in a historical analysis at all.  Properly done, history must be examined and analyzed from a dispassionate, almost other-worldly, perspective. Let me give you an example using the Civil War.


Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union—a union that had been voluntarily, democratically entered by the various states and subsequent territories.  Take away the repugnant institution of slavery, and the Confederacy had the better democratic claim for what they wished to do, if the critical ideal for a democratic republic is self-determination.  Had Lincoln not been able to wrap his cause of preserving the Union in the flag of ending slavery, the 600,000 dead would have been an atrocious cost to pay in order to keep a voluntarily-entered union from being voluntarily and democratically dissolved.

Stripped of moral judgments, history abounds with irony.   Lincoln had to subvert the democratic will of the Southern state legislatures in order to preserve democracy.  He eventually used the greater evil of slavery as justification for his fight against Southern democracy, but it should never be forgotten that he didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, well after hostilities had commenced.   He pinned his cause on eliminating slavery only when it appeared his cause of preserving the Union was in jeopardy.  One wonders, what rationale to hold together the Union would be available, if in the future some state democratically determined it wished to leave?  Considering that even client states like Iraq and Afghanistan have no choice about their limited participation in the Union, it would be outlandish to imagine that something would not be contrived if, e.g., Texas figured it would be better off going it alone, again.  Lincoln was lucky.  He had the abolition of slavery to steel the people’s hearts and minds to battle against their own people, and in some measure, against their own ideals.  Artfully leveraging slavery to his purposes was part of Lincoln’s genius.  It would take an even more astute politician to conjure such a compelling purpose today, if one of the several states sought leave to end its association.

Ok, continuing my example using the Civil War (yes, one of my favorite period so history to study), let's take a look at the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee.  Lee is perhaps the most mythologized and romanticized military leader in American history.  His tactical brilliance is routinely praised, though there is precious little evidence supporting the view.  In fact, Lee led tactical disaster after disaster, not least Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, which as any reasonably astute tactician understands, and all Lee’s generals at the time fully well knew, was nothing more or less than Confederate suicide.  In many ways, Lee was the Union’s best general.  History is always written by the victors, perhaps explaining the enduring myth of Lee’s tactical brilliance.  The victors would not wish to imagine that Lee’s defeat was anything other than the product of their own valor and determination against a formidable foe.

So, are we correct to label something as "evil" simply to justify our own desire to elevate our own "goodness" or to justify something we consider (or in history's case - the victor) to be morally good.  Could not one claim that Lincoln was an "evil" man for leading the country into a war that, as stated earlier, actually went against the very principals of the Declaration of Independence? If you don't think so, maybe you should take the time to re-read the Declaration of Independence, for it clearly stated:

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Would it not be equally justified to declare that Robert E. Lee was "evil" for leading the Confederate states into one disaster after another; only on the belief that for some reason the South was justified in it's succession?

What about other characters that we find throughout history?  Who is "evil"?  Why are they considered "evil?"  How will history look back at us 100, 500, or a 1000 years from now when they read that we aborted millions of unborn children (NO!!! THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-ABORTION MESSAGE!!!...but what if for some reason later on that it's discovered that a fetus at 1 week old can indeed feel pain...it would probably change the interpretations that some have about the "justification" of aborting a fetus...therefore the future may judge us completely different)?  Will we be considered an "evil" people?

Last but not least - the question must also be asked - is an individuals actions "evil" or is it the results of a given action that are evil?

Trust me, the topic is difficult to nail down and granted, the interpretations are just as varied as the events in history itself.  So here's the blog topic for this week.....

BLOG QUESTION:
Is Evil, "evil"?  Can we effectively and justifiably declare someone or something in history as being "evil" - if so how or why? 

52 comments:

  1. According to the World English Dictionary, evil is "a force or power that brings about wickedness or harm". The problem is, everybody has a different interpretation of what that exactly is. There will never be a consensus on who or what can be considered "evil". Everybody sees through different eyes; some people see through rose-tinted glasses, seeing all the good in people, while others are extremely pessimistic and can only nitpick at the bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on Melissa... you got to take a stand here!! You're trying to play both sides of the argument.

      Delete
    2. My point is that since we can't come up with a consensus on what "evil" truly is, we can't justifiably declare someone as being "evil".

      Delete
    3. Ok, then according to that argument, we can't define someone as being "good" either, correct?

      Delete
    4. People definitely have different viewpoints about everything which makes it hard to distinguish a clear cut good or evil. I agree with you Melissa. What I find being evil may not be too bad to someone else and vice versa. And Mr. Gehm, yes I think that there isn't a definition to good ether.

      Delete
    5. To Mr. Gehm. No their is no such a thing as good. There is no such thing as good or evil. To Abu and Melissa. People have varying viewpoints, but that is not enough to say that there is no such thing as evil. Evil and Good are not about view points (see my blog to see what they are). View points is an opinion on something. We are talking about is their a true good or evil. This is not someones opinion on an issue.

      Delete
    6. There is no such thing as good and evil, only popular opinion. I bet a majority of people would say Mother Teresa was the most saintly person to walk the earth, but I could say she fed her own ego and was selfish in that aspect. I think the concept of good and evil is a personal allusion.

      Delete
    7. I liked what you said about everyone viewing things from a different perspective! Which is why all these blogs are always interesting. But I do have to say that no one can be labeled as being evil, whether it is from one view point or another, everyone has evil in them

      Delete
  2. Is evil found in nature, or is it a man made thing? Obviously, evil is not found in nature, it is a man made definition to describe something that goes against someones culture or morals. Basically evil and good is determined by the government, the majority of the people, and your own personal morals (as long as your personal morals complies with the government and the majority of the people). Now I'm going to present an example where you tell me what is good and what is evil. "Abu is walking down the streets one day and he sees a little kid with a sandwich. Abu steals the food and runs away with it." According to the government, the majority, and most likely your own personal morals, this action is viewed as evil. Now let me change your perception of evil with the continuation of the story. "Abu reaches a safe spot where he can no longer hear the wails of the rich kid crying, and he starts to eat the food. This is the only food Abu has eaten for weeks. Abu was on the verge of starving to death, and the food gave him enough energy to go and find more food." Now who is evil? Evil is up to the mind to decide.
    Now you're probably wondering, if there is no evil than were do we get laws and morals from? Religion. Thou shall not do this nor that. It is clear what you can and can not do. In other words, it is a distinction between what is "good" and what is "evil." Now I want you to think of a world without religion. In addition to a world without religion, think of a world without a government. It is impossible for a such a world to exist today, but such a world is needed to answer the question of "is evil evil?" Without religion or laws, we can observe the true human nature, and we can see if evil truly does exist or not.
    As it stands now, I do not believe in pure Evil nor Good (I am separating religion out of the definition). They are simply man made creations which everyone is forced to accept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bishoy you're analogy of Abu stealing the loaf of bread isn't accurate. Sounds like Javert vs Jean Valjean from Les Miserables by the way, even though you probably don't know who they are. Anyway, most of the history that we study has uncovered all the facts about the topic. So in this case, the side of the story were Abu is really starving would be revealed. In other term, the stuff we read in textbooks is for the most part exposed in my opinions. For example when we studied Berkley and Bacon's Rebellion, Bacon (the rebel) was breaking the law but he seems to be the one shown in a more positive light verses William Berkley. I really just don't like the example you used to back up your argument. Your comment about religion is stimulating. But I disagree. I don't think that without religion, humans would be mindless. emotionless, and without conscience. I feel like those are intrinsic qualities that unreligious people still can have.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry about all the grammar mistakes, I'm tired.

      Delete
    3. Bishoy, thank you for using me in your post. But yes I agree, everything is interpreted the way one wants to perceive it. For example, the U.S. pretty much caused the extinction of the Native Americans but we do not find ourselves as being evil? But perhaps other countries on earth see us as evil. There is more than one viewpoint on everything.

      Delete
    4. You missed the point of my example. The example shows how easy it is to change someones perception of good or evil. A man broke a law (evil), to survive (good) and live another day. So was the action that Abu did evil or good? And as towards Abu's comment. It is true that everyone has their own viewpoints, but also one of my arguments was that the perception of evil and good can be changed according to the scenario, so that leaves us with the question of "Is their a true, pure, evil?"

      Delete
    5. Bishoy I like the entire argument besides that homeless Abu scenario that kind of left me thinking where you got that from. I think, since you are talking about point of views and perception of an action, evil can be influence by this picture.
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X_k7dzYJBQQ/UGYo9l8My4I/AAAAAAAAA6k/BBYFCLpNhnA/s1600/385078_4232303123399_991724987_n.jpg
      The soldiers in this picture can easily be represented as good or evil based on how it is exposed to the public. This is why propaganda can have such a major influence on how people perceive things. Since we can’t know the full story we will never accurately create a good and evil.

      Delete
  3. The definition of both evil and good is based off of, as Bishoy stated, morals, cultures and traditions. We cannot really call someone evil because everyone has different morals. What one may consider evil, another may not. For example, a vegetarian might consider the killing of chicken but a carnivore like myself may not consider it something bad. The definition of evil has slowly changed and as time proceeds it is likely to transform. We may consider something in history to be evil currently, but as time goes on we may not. Therefore, we can’t really call something evil. Another example is that Jews consider Hitler to be evil, however, Nazi supporters consider him as a hero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you say different morals I feel like you're referring to more specific and petty issues. Someones morals about religion, education, marriage may differ from person to person. But issues like murder and rape attract a consensus from the human race, no matter the "moral", that they are evil.

      Delete
    2. I'm going to adress Maya's point. We are lucky to live in a country like the United States where we are sheltered from third world horrors. But certain places in Africa require you to kill or be killed. These places have war lords fighting against war lords, all of them employing youth as a big part of their military. These war lords commit atrocities that you could not think of. Yet people still love and obey them. So does murder attract a consensus from the human race? No.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. Some nations have gained a familiarity with this type of behavior which we deem as illegal or morally wrong. There is no such thing as a national consensus in regard to anything even in modern times especially.

      Delete
  4. Okay, so it took me a long time to actual settle on a solid opinion here. In all honesty I don't really buy of all this intellectualism, sorry Mr. Gehm. Is there a clear cut evil in the world? Yes, of course there is. Now, what I feel like the prompt is leaning towards is that is it fair for people on the outside looking in to declare a perpetuator of a an action “evil”; because at the same time the person who does the act may think he or she is doing a great thing. But I think this is a load of poop. If a majority of the populous views something as wrong then it is obviously wrong. And I’m not talking about petty things such as “If someone doesn’t pay their parking tickets, they are committing a crime and are therefore evil” but if someone brutally murders an innocent child then they are obviously evil. There is no way around that, even if the murderer claims that they did a saint-like deed. If we didn’t have a clear cut instinct of right and wrong, good and evil, then how would the human race be able to have any trusting relationships or bonds. I cry like a baby every single time I watch surprise military homecomings on YouTube and I’m pretty sure everyone else on this blog would too. Why? Because we have compassion and kindness, no matter how rude or disrespectful we can be at times. That’s why when we watch the news and see reports of rape and murder we are shocked. When we hear or learn about something horrific we feel sympathy. Why? Because majority of the population has good hearts.

    Now I do see that the prompt has another side. Can history be interpreted as clear cut good or evil? If we disassociate any emotion from history and learn like zombies then I think the wonder and amazement of it will be gone. We have heroes in history that inspire us. There’s no doubt that leaders like Martin Luther King Jr for example are good people at the core. Same thing goes for Lincoln, even if he did defy the Declaration he did so for a reason.. Not just for the hell of it. And we also have the dark side of history that shocks us. Saying there’s another side to evil is like saying that Hitler and slavery have positive elements. I understand that maybe these wrong doers didn’t realize that they were doing some crazy shenanigans, but that still doesn’t change the fact of they committed an EVIL act. And even though Hitler did have supporters what does that matter? I mean seriously, the guy annihilated 6 million people and we have to ponder upon his character? That's adding waaaaaaaay too much depth here Gehm. I don’t mean to sound ignorant or not philosophical, but there’s a clear division between good and evil, and most people would be able to recognize this. If evil didn’t exist then what would be good?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't assume that every single person out there has a good heart. What about the people who do commit murders. Not every member of the earth has a conscience.

      Delete
    2. Again what is that boundary that separates Good from Evil? why do we even call something evil or good? Everything about this concept is just abstract and you believe what you want to believe. And as for "I understand that maybe these wrong doers didn’t realize that they were doing some crazy shenanigans, but that still doesn’t change the fact of they committed an EVIL act. " What made it evil? You just can't say because you know its evil or because you just feel this sort of emotion or something. So yeah, I am still against labeling things as evil evil.

      Delete
    3. Like chriz said,I do not think it sis fair to label somethimg as good and evil. Everyone has their own beliefs, ethics, etc... Evil is determined upon an individual's opinion, and cannot be decided upon the view of one single person. Abu used an example about the vegitarians and carnviores. From this one can see, that veggy people may think it is wrong to eat meat while carnivores may think otherwise. Now there is also the case if the veggy person is veggy due to religious reason or something of that sort, or are they veggy because they don't want to eat all that fat that comes from meat or even for just no simply reason.

      Delete
  5. After some thinking, disassociating any religious beliefs and any sense of morality, I believe that you really can't classify anything or anyone as evil evil, or good good. Let's take for example the actions of dictators in history such as Adolf Hitler. We may view his chosen measures as immoral and evil, BUT was he really evil? No, because he was just someone who wanted to bring a sense of morale to Germany and lift the nation up. He was someone who aimed to bring betterment to the nation. He didn't do what he did because he just wanted to, he just simply believed that his actions will bring great changes to Germany and might dig Germany out of a big ditch. Thus, we can't label him evil because we do not understand where he is coming from.
    On the other hand, can we even describe what really is good or evil without using any religious reference? No. we were just brought up believing that certain things are evil while others are good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like everyone is hopping on the bandwagon of "you can't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes". In the case of Adolf Hitler his actions permanently landed him on the world stage to be judged. I just find it crazy that you're exploring the possibility that the character of Hitler may not be evil. Do you actually believe that? Or are you just writing it to seem philosophical and go along with the prompt? Everyone on this blog is seeming to be having a love affair with Hitler at the moment. Hitler may have been a sweet little boy at one time, but who cares what he was. No matter which way you twist and turn opinions, the fact of the matter is that he was a sick man that caused the Holocaust. There could have been monumentally less horrific ways to make Germany strong again. So, I just want to point out that using HItler as an example seems irrational at the least to me. There could be better examples of this.

      Delete
    2. First of, Hitler was a really good example to prove my point. Second, as for "Do you actually believe that? Or are you just writing it to seem philosophical and go along with the prompt" As I said at the beginning of my post "I BELIEVE that you really can't classify anything or anyone as evil evil, or good good" Again, disassociating any religious beliefs and any sense of morality. Can you even describe what is evil and what is good? Aren't we just raised on the bounds of this long lists of things that are categorized as evil or good. But who even categorized all these things? Like seriously, you may even say that, if you are a person and a human you just know deep down inside the concept of evil and good. But can I just say that the existence of both evil and good is just abstract. It's like the concept of gravity. We know its there, but what makes it gravity? Same thing goes to the concept of evil and good. What makes something good or evil? Now on that reference about Hitler, Can you blame a guy for believing that by taking the measures he took, he was bringing some sense of betterment to their nation? And disassociating this statement to my previous statement about Hitler, Are we evil to believe what we think is good for us? So, yeah I am not just posting what I post just to seem philosophical and just to go with the prompt. I actually dig deep down in my brain to come up with it. :)

      Delete
    3. Ok I agree how we can not say if their is a true evil or not, but I do not agree with your statement. Hitler, according to society, the government, human morals, and my self, was evil. He murdered millions, and millions more were devastated by his actions. what he did was evil. What he was trying to do in the beginning of his rule was ok, but the murder and hatred toward a certain people because of their beliefs was evil. It was evil right? Then why did so many follow him? Why would his soldiers follow an evil man? Fear? Did they believe in what he was doing was true and not evil? We may never know

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Bishoy, I believe that your comment got lost.

      Delete
    6. I second that chriz. Bishoy, chriz is not saying that she does or doesnt believ that Hitler is evil. She is only trying to prove a point, as am I, that as you believe evil roots off moral, and we are simply making a point to disagree with that. As I said in my post, whether the measure taken my hitler were extreme or not, thoses measures may be the right decision, in teh eyes of Hitler.

      Delete
    7. Karish, bishoy's comment got lost I have no statement that says "Hitler, according to society, the government, human morals, and my self, was evil. He murdered millions, and millions more were devastated by his actions. what he did was evil." or something like that. But nevertheless I don't get what you are trying to say " that as you believe evil roots off moral, and we are simply making a point to disagree with that." Anyways, again you can't blame somebody for being evil when all he did was just take the path he thought was the best for Germany.

      Delete
    8. People can be classified as good or evil, but I believe they are not born evil or good. It is possible to be described as good or evil, because everyone has the potential to go either way. Classifying people as bad or good then questions what justifies good or evil qualifications. I'm trying to say something that makes sense. Why can't I live blissfully ignorant and stuff?

      Delete
    9. How can you classify them though without saying 'Oh, because you feel it' 'Oh because, it socially acceptable' or without using religious reference. What is the boundary that separates them? And does that mean, There are people who are categorized as good and others under evil, but are they really good and evil? I mean, the concept of good vs. evil is very abstract. It's like staring at a painting with no definite shapes just mix of colors and some lines, yet it's something. And then some can call the painting a tree, or a rock. So yeah

      Delete
    10. Addressing Jamie's point about everyone not being born evil: Everyone is born with good and evil, and i believe it is human nature to obtain those characteristics. I also do not believe they can be classified as good or evil because again. that is a trait that we all obtain when we are born.

      Delete
  6. I definitely don't think you can label somebody as "evil." We like to think that evil people are different from us and that they are some form of evil monster while the "good" live in the light. A religious minority or a gunman do not belong to a monstrous sub-section of society; they are all human. Therefore, evil comes from humans and so do the most noble things. All humans are capable of doing bad things as well as good, but we must remember that all "evil" things come from inside people just like us. Ultimately, I don't think you can depict somebody as evil and shouldn't since it is just intellectual laziness. For instance, many people know Hitler did "bad things," but fail to dive into the complexities of the situation. Morality is a crazy subject and not concrete, but the concept of good vs. evil is incorrect and inhibits us to look deeper into a situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your statement "evil comes from humans and so do the most noble things." I just think that the main concept of evil and good is just abstract. You can't provide evidence to prove to me that something is evil and something is good. Also, i just think the concept of both evil and good is just something we created and projected it to reality. Just like the law of gravity. is that even gravity or is it just a term coined to call something that make things drop.

      Delete

    2. Chriz said "You can't provide evidence to prove to me that something is evil and something is good." I agree with this because what may be wrong in teh eyes of you, may not be the same otherwise in my eyes. Like I said in my post evil has no defintite meaning, it is interpreted differently for every person.

      Delete
    3. I think we are all kind of falling away from the question of can we effectively and justifiably classify someone as evil in history; not does evil exist. So in saying that no one is really evil, Hitler was a good man, and bad deeps come from good people i feel isn't a true answer to the prompt. I think the best result is that no single perception of evil exists because of culture, propaganda and morals. What is good to us might be evil somewhere else.

      Delete
    4. "Intellectual laziness" is a very straightforward, very relatable, reason for generalizing complex situations. As we've been learning, Hitler had his reasons and plans for his actions, they were not random punishments. People focus on the major event involving Hitler, and every aspect of him that deals with his treatment of Jews, without evaluating him as a whole person.

      Delete
    5. I get what you are saying but I am not implying that Hitler is good because he isn't evil. It doesn't work that way either. I guess we can agree that classifying someone as evil in history especially serves no purpose.

      Delete
    6. I like what you said about not being able to label someone "evil". I was also interested by what you said about good vs. evil. It is sad when people compare these two adjectives because everyone is good and everyone is evil. Evil does not have to be something truly bad but even a small act of crime can catagorize a person to be evil. Everyone is looking at the word evil to such a large scale, but at times the smallest act can bring out the evil inside someone even if they are commonly known to be "good".

      Delete
  7. After putting some thought into this, I don’t think evil is based off morals, culture, etc… I do not think you can just simple define a person as evil or good based what they believe in. I think a couple of people brought up this example: Adolf Hitler. Hitler in the eyes of many people today like us may define him as “evil.” But, was he really? Now I am not saying I don’t think he is evil. That does not matter what I think. Hitler was just a guy that wanted Germany to be indestructible and well respected. Now whether the methods he used were right or wrong are not determined upon morals, and culture. Because maybe to him, his morals and culture, and religious view allow him to choose those incorrect methods (correct in his eyes) to take such action. And I don’t think you can judge someone until you have been in their shoes, and see why they did what they did or why they think what they think. In addition, I feel that evil not have a definite meaning, and has various interpretations determined upon an individual person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evil, from what i believe, is a created classification of a person based on your own beliefs and what people are influenced to believe in their specific groups. Sure you may not think Hitler is evil, But wow.... Hitler is the cruelest leader in history causing the most casualties ever during his reign. He was bad and like i mean evil villain bad. But what makes me see he is evil? because in my culture my morals tell me that his massive murdering of the Jews is wrong. To Nazi's they see this as okay. So how do morals and cultures not affect perception of evil?

      Delete
    2. We can depict Hitler as that way now, but not all nations perceived him as the cruelest leader in history at the time. America was obviously impacted by their wartime alliances too that weren't associated with Germany. I think the problem also with classifying someone as evil in history makes all of their other actions put to shame. I am not sticking up for Hitler, but it is difficult to understand his plan because we always just jump to the conclusion that he killed millions and was crazy. That's no way to interpret history.

      Delete
  8. Is Evil, evil? Taking the same approach as my fellow “coworker” Bishoy; does one find evil within human nature, or rather does man instill evil within someone else. I don’ think “evil” is something found in human nature because evil itself is based solely on perspective. “History is written by the victor” may be the truth however; wouldn’t one agree that those on the losing side would see the victors as evil? Wouldn’t that make any action, or in this case war, evil? So what is evil to us? Evil to us is based on the ethics of our culture, religion, and region. Even more so even is defined by our government and Propaganda. Propaganda is more so for its immense ability to instill idea and beliefs in the people. At most propaganda should be considered evil or the creator of what we think is “evil”. Taking from a source; in the US vs. THEM situation “The essence of propaganda is to create the perception that our actions are always ethical and honorable, while those of our opponent are unethical and dishonorable”. SO evil is based on what people are made to believe. If y’all would please look at this photo.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X_k7dzYJBQQ/UGYo9l8My4I/AAAAAAAAA6k/BBYFCLpNhnA/s1600/385078_4232303123399_991724987_n.jpg
    Again as if history is written by the victor. So possibly in a perfect world, we could define some people as evil and others as good; but in a society of influence and perspective it simply doesn’t exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true, the media prevents us from seeing the entire picture. By showing certain events and promoting propaganda, the media is a major factor that provides definitions for good and evil by manipulating facts (1984 flashback).

      Delete
  9. As always, Mr. Gehm, you have left me distraught, analyzing the meaning of life and everything in between, until my brain is pretty much numb. I love thought-provoking, psychological questions, but I do not know the principles or anything about psychology to help organize and make sense of my thoughts. I think good and evil are things that are assumed, understood, intrinsic. But I then always question myself "What if the people who commit crimes and think seditious thoughts are actually the sane ones, and the "sane" people are wrong?" That may seem crazy, but "sane" people are only "sane" because the majority of people, respectfully, think the same humane thoughts and act within the limits of the law. Good and evil deals with the majority opinion, the apparent trends in society. One day the world could be completely opposite, where illegal crimes are not illegal. One typically does the right thing to blend into society.
    So, as with my views on religion and evolution, I am pulled by both sides. I believe
    there needs to be things marked as evil so the "good" can prevail. That evil bans people together; people are united by hate in order to achieve good. The evil in WWII was the Jews, the evil in the Civil War was the "evil" of slavery.
    Oh and also persuasive individuals and influences define good and evil. If someone said to me "Slavery? Are you serious? You would support such a horrible act against humanity?" The way opinions are expressed can shape the opinions of everyone, creating assumed connotations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, I got lured in to comment on your post because I really liked your statement "That evil bans people together; people are united by hate in order to achieve good." However, I read your post like 3 times, but I just don't understand what is your stand (maybe my brain is not functioning ) On the other hand, " One typically does the right thing to blend into society. " really intrigued me the most. True, when you think about it, We see the same good and evil as most society see. It's like if you want to be sane, you have to be one with society. If you are not then you are insane. (isnt that one of Emily Dickinson's poem?)

      Delete
    2. Your closing statement, that the way opinions are expressed by influential persons can shape everyone else's opinion, was extremely thought provoking. I never really thought of it that way.

      Delete
  10. Apart from the fact that i had to right this blog over 30 times because it would not post, this is an interesting blog topic because it can honestly go both ways. But i believe that no human being has the ability to be branded as being completely evil. Although several of my fellow classmates have states that evil does not come from human nature, i have to thoroughly disagree. Evil is within everyone and it is most definitely brought out during the worst times. The concept of good vs. evil appears to be invalid to me. Why would it be split up into two categories when good and evil lives within one person? Being evil mainly depends on the approach to certain situations and the overall decisions made by one person. Overall, evil lives within everyone and to label someone as evil would b a hypocritical action because it is a part in everyones nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said about evil actually being a part of human nature. Look at how much crime rates of all sorts has increased over time, and how things become worse during crises. It's something that's innate within everyone.

      Delete
  11. Ok, since this was such a great blog topic (meaning I enjoyed the analysis that many of you made), I felt that I needed to add something here and to clarify something at the same time.

    First, my presentation in the opening dialog of this blog was written for a reason - to make you think. It worked. Secondly, I ,unlike normally, am going to make a personal statement - since you have all made your post and my comments here won't influence anyone's points of view for the blog.

    Maybe, surprisingly to some, I agree with Maya (and in part with JD, since I think he, at least in part, had a better grasp of what the prompt was truly asking). In my personal opinion - evil MUST exist. Not in the terms of pure opinion or interpretation, as it may appear, but it must REALLY exist. If "evil" does not exist than we, as a society of people, are doomed. And it does not need to exist simply so that we can clarify what "good" is or is not.

    If collectively, we as a people, cannot make a determination of something being "evil" than how are we going to advance as a people - as a human race. In nearly every society, mass murder is not considered a "good" thing - even in societies that might actually partake in such actions (the example of "war lords" and their actions would be such an example). They commit these horrible acts not because they consider them "good" but to obtain a position of power. Their actions have NOTHING to do with the perception of being a "good action within their own mind." They know it is evil, they know it is wrong, they know that the majority of humanity views the actions as "evil" - they simply do not care because they are concerned with the element of power they have by committing such an act.

    That same approach is true with Hitler, with the slave masters of the Old South, it's the same with nearly every historical or current example one could come to think of. I'd be willing to make the statement that 99.9% of the time that such acts are NOT done because they believe they are doing something "morally" correct or any such fairytale ideology or concept. No, it is nearly always done for "power."

    Maya used the example of rape - of which experts will tell you has nothing to do with sex, but EVERYTHING to do with power. I also think it is a major mistake to believe that Hitler simply believed that he was doing what he believed to be "good" for Germany - maybe you could make that argument for his economic plan to get Germany's unemployment rates way down - but as stated in class - in totalitarianism it is important to clarify something as the ills of society - the "evil" of which the people can rally against. By doing so, you cause the people to see your "good" as the answer to their problems and then it makes it 100 times easier for you to obtain the power and control that you want.

    Dr. Demo's point was that in analyzing history, we have to be careful how we label individual characters or events in history. Labels can prevent a true analysis of the individual and / or the event from taking place. And without a doubt, we all know that various acts or event's interpretations can change over time. Why? Why do they change? Because society changes and it's viewpoints change.

    We can't run run away from what we are. We can't change who we are. Society will always be needed and just as we will always need the "good" events in life to grasp upon (a solider's surprise home coming) - just like we will always need to clarify "evil" acts - acts that we, as a society will not accept.

    ReplyDelete