The thing Cito kills the most is the vibe

BWE wrote:Cito have you ever killed something on purpose, something mammal and larger than a rabbit?

What's special about mammals larger than rabbits?

jamest wrote:Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil

By nuking it I'd agree, but how about an off switch, that instantly, painlessly, killed all humans, including the switch operator.

Would operating the switch be evil? There'd be no one to suffer any more.

Seabass wrote:

BWE wrote:Cito have you ever killed something on purpose, something mammal and larger than a rabbit?

What's special about mammals larger than rabbits?

Bigger eyes

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil

By nuking it I'd agree, but how about an off switch, that instantly, painlessly, killed all humans, including the switch operator.

Would operating the switch be evil? There'd be no one to suffer any more.

I don't know how the operator could justify such an action without declaring all humans as utterly evil (or at least 'bad'), including themself, in which case their act would necessarily be evil or bad also.

If the operator does not think that all humans are evil/bad, then pressing the button would also be an evil/bad action, for now the operator is knowingly killing good people too.

So, I'd say that the operator is evil in either case.

BWE wrote:

Seabass wrote:

BWE wrote:Cito have you ever killed something on purpose, something mammal and larger than a rabbit?

What's special about mammals larger than rabbits?

Bigger eyes

If I have a burger have I killed a cow on purpose?

BWE wrote:It it evil to eat a human who wants to be eaten?

The answer is no, not at all.

jamest wrote:

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil

By nuking it I'd agree, but how about an off switch, that instantly, painlessly, killed all humans, including the switch operator.

Would operating the switch be evil? There'd be no one to suffer any more.

I don't know how the operator could justify such an action without declaring all humans as utterly evil (or at least 'bad'), including themself, in which case their act would necessarily be evil or bad also.

If the operator does not think that all humans are evil/bad, then pressing the button would also be an evil/bad action, for now the operator is knowingly killing good people too.

So, I'd say that the operator is evil in either case.

Leaving aside all the pets that would be locked in the house, and all the battery chickens that would die (more) unpleasantly, and the nuclear reactors that would eventually melt down and contaminate the surroundings (my off switch could release or euthanise them too, and harmlessly disable the reactors)...

... it's not obvious to me why killing *everyone* would be evil. Even killing is an odd word to use in this context. There would just be no humans any more. No one would be suffering, as is the case if you kill specific humans.

One moment there, next moment gone. Sounds quite nice, in a way. Leave the animals and plants to find their equilibrium again, like they had before humans came along and trashed the place.

I'm not trolling, BTW, this is a genuine question, even if I'm a very amateurish philosopher. And I do think evil is a thing, even if it's hard to define. The holocaust was a huge evil.

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:

Seabass wrote:

BWE wrote:Cito have you ever killed something on purpose, something mammal and larger than a rabbit?

What's special about mammals larger than rabbits?

Bigger eyes

If I have a burger have I killed a cow on purpose?

Unrelated to my reason for asking. I was getting at the difference between kindness and choices. I was a butcher for about ten years through high school and college and I've killed a lot of large animals. 10s of thousands actually. And it informed my perspective on a lot of things related to kindness and good and evil. There is nothing outcome related about kindness that is necessary for it to matter. You can be kind to a thing you need to kill. You can also be evil to a thing you need to kill. Neither affects the killing part.

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil

By nuking it I'd agree, but how about an off switch, that instantly, painlessly, killed all humans, including the switch operator.

Would operating the switch be evil? There'd be no one to suffer any more.

I don't know how the operator could justify such an action without declaring all humans as utterly evil (or at least 'bad'), including themself, in which case their act would necessarily be evil or bad also.

If the operator does not think that all humans are evil/bad, then pressing the button would also be an evil/bad action, for now the operator is knowingly killing good people too.

So, I'd say that the operator is evil in either case.

Leaving aside all the pets that would be locked in the house, and all the battery chickens that would die (more) unpleasantly, and the nuclear reactors that would eventually melt down and contaminate the surroundings (my off switch could release or euthanise them too, and harmlessly disable the reactors)...

... it's not obvious to me why killing *everyone* would be evil. Even killing is an odd word to use in this context. There would just be no humans any more. No one would be suffering, as is the case if you kill specific humans.

One moment there, next moment gone. Sounds quite nice, in a way. Leave the animals and plants to find their equilibrium again, like they had before humans came along and trashed the place.

I'm not trolling, BTW, this is a genuine question, even if I'm a very amateurish philosopher. And I do think evil is a thing, even if it's hard to define. The holocaust was a huge evil.

You would take away people's freedom to live as they please. Yes, life can be difficult and people suffer, but that doesn't mean it's right to take it away without consent.

Aye. "Steady on there Thanos."

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:

TopCat wrote:

jamest wrote:Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil

By nuking it I'd agree, but how about an off switch, that instantly, painlessly, killed all humans, including the switch operator.

Would operating the switch be evil? There'd be no one to suffer any more.

I don't know how the operator could justify such an action without declaring all humans as utterly evil (or at least 'bad'), including themself, in which case their act would necessarily be evil or bad also.

If the operator does not think that all humans are evil/bad, then pressing the button would also be an evil/bad action, for now the operator is knowingly killing good people too.

So, I'd say that the operator is evil in either case.

Leaving aside all the pets that would be locked in the house, and all the battery chickens that would die (more) unpleasantly, and the nuclear reactors that would eventually melt down and contaminate the surroundings (my off switch could release or euthanise them too, and harmlessly disable the reactors)...

... it's not obvious to me why killing *everyone* would be evil. Even killing is an odd word to use in this context. There would just be no humans any more. No one would be suffering, as is the case if you kill specific humans.

Most people (and animals) value their lives, which is why they usually get scared when those lives are threatened. They aren't just scared of pain and suffering, they want to continue living. So, when the operator presses the switch they are denying individuals their desire to continue living, regardless of whether any suffering is involved. Ending a person's life is the act of killing that person, by definition. Whether the cull is painless or not is irrelevant, since the switch-operator should know that in the vast majority of cases they are depriving humans of their will and desire to live.

Since almost everyone wants to continue living, the switch-operator cannot justify their decision to flick the switch, even if they think all humanity is evil (which must include themself). Therefore, since there is no justification for their action, the act must be deemed bad/evil.

One moment there, next moment gone. Sounds quite nice, in a way.

Nearly all humans accept that they will eventually die and would choose to die without suffering, but hardly any humans would choose to be killed by another human without their own consent, especially prematurely.
Further, most humans are emotionally invested in the lives of several other humans also, meaning that what they want for themselves they also want for others. The desire to continue living does not usually apply just to oneself.

Leave the animals and plants to find their equilibrium again, like they had before humans came along and trashed the place.

I understand the sentiment, but not everybody has trashed the place. What you'll find is that those in power are responsible, which means for the most part that the peasants are forced to live a life forged for them by the Kings & Presidents of this world. Life revolves around maintaining the status quo of figureheads, if not men then nations/flags. It's fubar, but what can the average Joe do about it?

What's crazy is that much less than 1% of the population have continually manipulated the peasants throughout, such that the minority have all the power and virtually all of the wealth, a material wealth which has ultimately had dire consequences for our planet and every other living species.

My personal hope is that there comes a time when the 99+% no longer put up with this system. A social revolution on a global scale. Redistribute the wealth more evenly, stop being a slave to individual people or nations/flags (and religions) and divert the primary purpose of humanity away from material growth/accumulation.

I'm not trolling, BTW, this is a genuine question, even if I'm a very amateurish philosopher. And I do think evil is a thing, even if it's hard to define. The holocaust was a huge evil.

I also believe that evil is a genuine concept, expressed tangibly via human thought and action, which ultimately is reducible to absolute selfish action with intent to harm others for one's own entertainment or gain. There's plenty of that going on. Thankfully, there is also a resistance to this mode of thought/action - an opposite force/desire - which we can conceptualise as 'good'.

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What's special about mammals larger than rabbits?

Bigger eyes

If I have a burger have I killed a cow on purpose?

Unrelated to my reason for asking. I was getting at the difference between kindness and choices. I was a butcher for about ten years through high school and college and I've killed a lot of large animals. 10s of thousands actually. And it informed my perspective on a lot of things related to kindness and good and evil. There is nothing outcome related about kindness that is necessary for it to matter. You can be kind to a thing you need to kill. You can also be evil to a thing you need to kill. Neither affects the killing part.

For the most part you could say that the nazis had the same attitude, for in most cases the camp interns were killed swiftly and efficiently, with a need (self-justified purpose) to do so.

I of course only say that to make a philosophical/thoughtful point, not to compare you to a nazi. I hope you understand.

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:
Bigger eyes

If I have a burger have I killed a cow on purpose?

Unrelated to my reason for asking. I was getting at the difference between kindness and choices. I was a butcher for about ten years through high school and college and I've killed a lot of large animals. 10s of thousands actually. And it informed my perspective on a lot of things related to kindness and good and evil. There is nothing outcome related about kindness that is necessary for it to matter. You can be kind to a thing you need to kill. You can also be evil to a thing you need to kill. Neither affects the killing part.

For the most part you could say that the nazis had the same attitude, for in most cases the camp interns were killed swiftly and efficiently, with a need (self-justified purpose) to do so.

I of course only say that to make a philosophical/thoughtful point, not to compare you to a nazi. I hope you understand.

I do. It's a complicated topic and we're stuck with vague words.

Which, I think, makes evil very much a word reflecting some mixture o foresight and intention.

BWE wrote:Which, I think, makes evil very much a word reflecting some mixture o foresight and intention.

The concepts of good and evil are meaningless without intent, requiring forethought. We cannot attribute evil to a cause devoid of intent and we cannot attribute intent to a cause devoid of thought/reasoning.

There are many examples of life (not just humanity) reflecting both selfish and selfless behaviour, but most of this happens naturally/instinctively (nature) and has nothing to do with the individualistic forethought and will that facilitates the choice of good and evil actions within humanity.

My opinion is that it is this choice through deliberation of selfish or selfless acts, which separates humanity from all other living things on this planet. This choice, this intent, is rebellious to all other life choices, since it overcomes basic instinct/drive and therefore nature itself.
Ants do what they do for each other because they are driven by their nature to do so. I do what I do because of my decisions within my limitless capacity to imagine what my reality might be.

I've just finished watching Vikings on Amazon Prime. I love history. Enjoyed it, but what I got most out of it was how much Viking history was forged because of the human capacity to transcend nature and imagine and believe in any reality - in this case numerous proud Gods and the promise of glory in death, inspiring much exploration and conquest.

The point is that humans can invent or reinvent their future, whereas nothing else can. That is the real difference between us and all else. And whilst I do not endorse most of human activity on this planet throughout history, what I see in its potential gives me hope for the future. Which is why I would never be the one to press the aforementioned switch, regardless of the present shite state-of-affairs. For, ultimately, I think that good shall conquer evil. That is, selflessness shall conquer selfishness.

We cannot attribute evil to a cause devoid of intent...

I think you can when lack of intent, apathy, laziness etc. leads to harm in a way that could've been predicted.

Which is why I used the term foresight rather than the term James chose of forethought.

But in absence of foresight, I'm not sure I would call an act evil. There is a sufficiently specific vocabulary available to distinguish gradations of disregard and selfishness.

The topic title suggests to me that “evil” is some sort of thing that can be boxed or exists on its own, apart from people, their motivations and their actions. I don’t think so. We see ideas that evil can be imparted on people by things or places, but that is nothing more than magical thinking. Stephen King makes a shitload of money with that idea.

But, since men do think and act in such ways, of course we can say evil exists. Men thinking and men behaving according to their thoughts certainly exists.

I wonder if it takes the action to qualify as evil. Because I can tell you, I have some really dark, violent thoughts from time to time. Does this make me evil? To be sure, were I to actually do some of the things I think about, boy, oh boy, that’d be some evil shit. But, I don’t.

On another hand (I didn’t use “on the other hand”, because this probably isn’t a dichotomy), where on the continuum of bad behavior does evil start? A kid stealing a candy bar? Probably not. Stealing a car? Stealing billions upon billions of dollars of investors’ funds? Somewhere on that continuum is a line defining evil.

What about killing? I’ve killed things. No people, but plenty of different animals that have slithered, crawled, ran, burrowed, flew, or swam. Why did I kill them? That question goes to my thoughts which led me to do that killing. Most of the things I’ve killed, I’ve eaten. Some I’ve killed to quickly end suffering. Some I’ve killed for sport, I am least proud of that. I’d say the killing for sport qualifies as evil. There are hundreds of dead prairie dogs at my hand which did nothing but try to find enough to eat. It’s the only reason I don’t do it any longer and never will. I thought it through. How about rats, mice, and other vermin? Killed plenty of those, too. Not for sport though, but for hygiene. Is that evil? Did the vermin care about the distinction, if they can care at all?

There’s a lot to unpack.

I wonder if it is possible to do something evil to something not alive. Is there anything I can do to the dirt in my garden that could be called evil? If I smash a rock into pieces, was that evil?

That's a good reflection. Killing in and of itself is something that changes with experience.

I wrote a couple reflections on it many years ago. Here's one:

HELL
"Don't do that! You'll go to Hell! "
"I thought you only go blind. I figured on stopping when I need glasses."

Hell never made any sense to me. I worked in slaughterhouses as a kid. You get used to it. Just when I thought no one minded if I ignored the whole Hell thing, that pastor in Bellingham went and told my wife and me (and the congregation) that Gandhi went there for not believing in Jesus. There I sat, too stunned to even have the presence of mind to suggest that he might be getting just a touch carried away. I think back to it now and all kinds of choice responses come to mind.

Experience in slaughterhouses teaches that death is a terrible punishment. Not terrible as in terrible for the one who dies but terrible as in anticlimactic. Anger and rage roll off a dead thing's back like it wasn't there. I suppose that's because it isn't there. The light in a living thing's eyes goes out when it dies. If you are ever in such a rage that you want to kill something or someone, it's overrated. Find a way to deal with the rage instead. Maybe take up knitting or a musical instrument.

I don't know why I wasn't horrified watching people rage against animals whose only crime was fear. I vividly remember behavior at the very edge of humanity from some knockers. I remember when I realized why some of them tortured the cows occasionally. The job demands the knocker go always faster, to kill faster. You learn that cows who fear you behave the most predictably. To use an animal's fear, coldly, dispassionately and efficiently, means that you keep running up and down the chute making as much noise as possible, clanging a stick against the metal fence rails, yelling the familiar "hup hup hup" and shocking them with a cattle prod to keep their fear levels high enough that they want to run away from you. Then all you have to do is stand behind them and jump and bang their way into the knocking box where you kill them quickly so they don't break into a full fledged panic from the smell of blood and brains and just death painted over the walls. They sometimes try to jump out of the box if they get too scared. It can get dangerous at times. Cows are big and you've got various large metal contraptions to keep track of.

For all that, still the cows sometimes refuse to cooperate. They try to back down the 'chute', the narrow walkway from the pens to the knocking box. They simply lie down and refuse to get up. The job demands that the knocker make them do what he wants but the poor beast sometimes decides to say no.

The nature of depersonalizing a living creature to the point where you simply remember how many you've killed so far and hardly anything about them individually puts a strain on your ability to cope with one that refuses orders. The category 'cow' shifts back and forth between diametrically opposed things. When they obey, they fall into the category of 'units', or how many have been 'done'. But when they refuse, when they fall victim to overwhelming fear, anger, pain or despair, the category 'cow' becomes a living, breathing thing that dares to defy.

The stress of the job which demands their rapid disposal as units and the reality that an individual life force is intentionally obstructing the knocker's intent, making the job more difficult and often more dangerous, crosses circuits in some people and they fly into a rage. If the knocker is experienced enough to foresee the level of difficulty about to be added by the intentional act of a creature consciously defying the necessary process, and I've seen this on several occasions, the knocker becomes enraged. They shock the cow to be cruel, chasing it both up and backwards, confusing it, terrifying it, and when the cow finally gets to the knocking box, the knocker doesn't always aim true. Sometimes a cow might only suffer a grievous injury rather than instant death. This is often intentional. The intent, the spoken, often screamed in fury for the world to hear, intent of the knocker is to make the cow suffer for its crime. Killing provides no solace to the aggrieved. That's why some of the knockers tortured some of the cows. And that's why it will always be that way, no matter how sad it makes people.

In order to want to torture a living being, some experience with death helps. You have to know that, once it's dead, you can't hurt it anymore. Amateur haters usually want to kill the object of their rage. They haven't yet learned the horrible emptiness caused when the offending life force blinks out and leaves the hater alone with his rage. When you kill something, you give it peace. The point you wanted to make no longer matters. When you hate, the last thing you want to do is bring peace. Hell offers some comfort that those who need to suffer will never find peace.