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.
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.