Is there a distinction between "lesser-evilism" and compromise? I tend to think there is. I'll never be up for any degree of "evilism" but am always ready to compromise.
_Compromise_ seems to imply a kind of contract between the differing parties, whereas _lesser-evillism_ is usually "take it or leave it," for example the Democratic Party leadership versus the proggies.
I would suggest that "principles" would be the defining difference between compromise & lesser-evilism. For example, Selling arms to the Saudi's is an unprincipled act and should not be allowed. The Saudi's are engaged in genocide in Yemen. Selling them arms is evil as they pose a real threat to poorer nations in the Middle East. Compromising with the MIC to sell said arms is not in our interests. However, In our Crisis Capitalistic/Predatory economy - all principles seem to have been abandoned by leadership long ago - and talk about principles with the movers and shakers will fall on deaf ears. Just look at the LIV Golf Fiasco as another example.
Well, now we're into the territory of defining what the principles are and who is in charge of them. As one person's principles might be quite different from another's.
You all seem to be unaware that "good" and "evil" are subjective.
Here is some ancient wisdom from Lao Tsu:
"recognise beauty and ugliness is born"
"recognise good and evil is born"
(Something akin to this is also in the Bible. The metaphor of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that most seem not to understand).
We apply these labels to human behaviour in the main. We are more matter-of-fact about animal behaviour. Are lions evil for killing animals and eating them? Of course not.
This is not to condone destruction or behaviour that harms others. You just leave that judgment to other authorities.
I think I understand your point - I am NOT unaware - but - everything is subjective. Is all art Propaganda??? Yes & No. I recognize fine Art when I see it but have a hard time explaining why I think it is fine art. Same applied for Good & Evil, as rational beings we are capable of discerning the difference. In WW2, Nazi soldiers should not be considered evil as they were enlisted and following a hierarchy. However, Guards at Auschwitz who engaged in demeaning and disgusting treatment of prisoners (having them do heavy work of meaningless results as they were worked to death as part of entertainment) is Evil. I don't think that Lao Tsu is the best choice to make here - he is very absolutist - his philosophy of everyone behave like a Warrior is flawed at it's face because our Societies (in order to properly function) require more than Warriors - we need Mothers, Elders, Care givers, teachers etc... I do not accept extreme philosophies like Tsu's and disregard his teachings completely. Carl Jung is a better choice regarding philosophy & aesthetics (in my opinion).
I am sorry I can't agree with you & don't know how exactly I misunderstand Tsu? Parroting Traditional Christian viewpoints? = I don't even know where to start with that sort of categorizing to dismiss. I am sorry you are frustrated and don't hold much hope for reaching me - wow I just don't get it???? Seriously, is this what you call a dialogue, if so, it sucks & you are very poor at explaining your viewpoint. Sorry we can't agree
I'm trying to understand your insistence on the notion. Of course categorizing is subjective. Atomic bombing of Japan is considered good by many Japanese as it supposedly put them on the right track.
Is what you drive at by insisting on "subjective" that, ultimately, there is no good or bad objectively?
And if good/bad are subjective do they lose their applicability/usefulness/etc? Which "authorities" do you leave judgement to? Who's in charge of characterizing atomic bombing?
Don't patronise me. You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. It's not easy to grasp this.
"good" and "evil" are just words!
This is ancient wisdom - I didn't originate it. I'm just trying to educate you. And clearly failing. I happily admit that I'm not very good at this.
Nobody is in charge of characterising atomic bombing. Nobody. That doesn't mean that I support it. I don't support any war or any militarism. There are no other "authorities". Not really. (Some might say God.)
If the Americans were not saying that their enemies were "evil" then maybe they would understand that the people they are judging are just as human as they are.
The fundamental point that you don't understand is it's not a matter of saying one or the other. Not pointing fingers and saying "evil" is not to condone.
It's just not to sit in judgment. We are not the supreme authority. We don't get to play "god". We are all equals!
If we as a species stopped being judgmental then all war and conflict would end.
Because nobody would be saying "X" is evil or "Y" is evil any more.
You can tell me Hitler was evil. And I would agree that his actions are not in any way to be condoned.
But you forget that he considered the Jews to be evil. Had he not then maybe there would have been no holocaust.
Individual human beings do not have the high moral ground. We are all imperfect. We all make mistakes.
There's an old biblical story (and no, I don't go to church) where a woman is to be stoned for prostitution. Jesus challenges her judgers, the ones calling her "evil". He challenges them saying "he who has never "sinned" (done anyone wrong) cast the first stone." They all put down their stones.
I think most people who bothered to think about it would agree there is no absolute standard or definition of good and evil, at least none which is available to human beings. However, that is irrelevant to the question of the nature and utility of "lesser evillism". Those arguing about it usually agree that some political forces or persons are nominally evil, but some think that some are more evil than others. Laozi's/Lao Tsu's remark is at once both true and silly, as the absence in an animal of the ability to evaluate some phenomena as preferable to others would soon lead to its death, as it would not eat, drink, or, I suppose, even breathe.
Is there a distinction between "lesser-evilism" and compromise? I tend to think there is. I'll never be up for any degree of "evilism" but am always ready to compromise.
_Compromise_ seems to imply a kind of contract between the differing parties, whereas _lesser-evillism_ is usually "take it or leave it," for example the Democratic Party leadership versus the proggies.
I would suggest that "principles" would be the defining difference between compromise & lesser-evilism. For example, Selling arms to the Saudi's is an unprincipled act and should not be allowed. The Saudi's are engaged in genocide in Yemen. Selling them arms is evil as they pose a real threat to poorer nations in the Middle East. Compromising with the MIC to sell said arms is not in our interests. However, In our Crisis Capitalistic/Predatory economy - all principles seem to have been abandoned by leadership long ago - and talk about principles with the movers and shakers will fall on deaf ears. Just look at the LIV Golf Fiasco as another example.
Well, now we're into the territory of defining what the principles are and who is in charge of them. As one person's principles might be quite different from another's.
Here it is in short:
how "good" is good? How "evil" is evil?
IT'S TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE!
JUST HUMAN BEINGS SETTING THEMSELVES UP AS JUDGE AND JURY TO THEIR FELLOW MEN AND WOMEN.
You all seem to be unaware that "good" and "evil" are subjective.
Here is some ancient wisdom from Lao Tsu:
"recognise beauty and ugliness is born"
"recognise good and evil is born"
(Something akin to this is also in the Bible. The metaphor of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that most seem not to understand).
We apply these labels to human behaviour in the main. We are more matter-of-fact about animal behaviour. Are lions evil for killing animals and eating them? Of course not.
This is not to condone destruction or behaviour that harms others. You just leave that judgment to other authorities.
I think I understand your point - I am NOT unaware - but - everything is subjective. Is all art Propaganda??? Yes & No. I recognize fine Art when I see it but have a hard time explaining why I think it is fine art. Same applied for Good & Evil, as rational beings we are capable of discerning the difference. In WW2, Nazi soldiers should not be considered evil as they were enlisted and following a hierarchy. However, Guards at Auschwitz who engaged in demeaning and disgusting treatment of prisoners (having them do heavy work of meaningless results as they were worked to death as part of entertainment) is Evil. I don't think that Lao Tsu is the best choice to make here - he is very absolutist - his philosophy of everyone behave like a Warrior is flawed at it's face because our Societies (in order to properly function) require more than Warriors - we need Mothers, Elders, Care givers, teachers etc... I do not accept extreme philosophies like Tsu's and disregard his teachings completely. Carl Jung is a better choice regarding philosophy & aesthetics (in my opinion).
You misunderstand Tsu.
You are parrotting the traditional Christian viewpoint. (Which is a misunderstanding of the Biblical message).
I have answered Russian-bot at length. I don't hold out much hope of reaching you. It's so frustrating.
There is no point in my continuing with this conversation. You just don't get it!
I am sorry I can't agree with you & don't know how exactly I misunderstand Tsu? Parroting Traditional Christian viewpoints? = I don't even know where to start with that sort of categorizing to dismiss. I am sorry you are frustrated and don't hold much hope for reaching me - wow I just don't get it???? Seriously, is this what you call a dialogue, if so, it sucks & you are very poor at explaining your viewpoint. Sorry we can't agree
I'm trying to understand your insistence on the notion. Of course categorizing is subjective. Atomic bombing of Japan is considered good by many Japanese as it supposedly put them on the right track.
Is what you drive at by insisting on "subjective" that, ultimately, there is no good or bad objectively?
And if good/bad are subjective do they lose their applicability/usefulness/etc? Which "authorities" do you leave judgement to? Who's in charge of characterizing atomic bombing?
Don't patronise me. You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. It's not easy to grasp this.
"good" and "evil" are just words!
This is ancient wisdom - I didn't originate it. I'm just trying to educate you. And clearly failing. I happily admit that I'm not very good at this.
Nobody is in charge of characterising atomic bombing. Nobody. That doesn't mean that I support it. I don't support any war or any militarism. There are no other "authorities". Not really. (Some might say God.)
If the Americans were not saying that their enemies were "evil" then maybe they would understand that the people they are judging are just as human as they are.
The fundamental point that you don't understand is it's not a matter of saying one or the other. Not pointing fingers and saying "evil" is not to condone.
It's just not to sit in judgment. We are not the supreme authority. We don't get to play "god". We are all equals!
If we as a species stopped being judgmental then all war and conflict would end.
Because nobody would be saying "X" is evil or "Y" is evil any more.
(continued)
You can tell me Hitler was evil. And I would agree that his actions are not in any way to be condoned.
But you forget that he considered the Jews to be evil. Had he not then maybe there would have been no holocaust.
Individual human beings do not have the high moral ground. We are all imperfect. We all make mistakes.
There's an old biblical story (and no, I don't go to church) where a woman is to be stoned for prostitution. Jesus challenges her judgers, the ones calling her "evil". He challenges them saying "he who has never "sinned" (done anyone wrong) cast the first stone." They all put down their stones.
I think most people who bothered to think about it would agree there is no absolute standard or definition of good and evil, at least none which is available to human beings. However, that is irrelevant to the question of the nature and utility of "lesser evillism". Those arguing about it usually agree that some political forces or persons are nominally evil, but some think that some are more evil than others. Laozi's/Lao Tsu's remark is at once both true and silly, as the absence in an animal of the ability to evaluate some phenomena as preferable to others would soon lead to its death, as it would not eat, drink, or, I suppose, even breathe.