People are different, and can act sincerely and socially but with very different values. I take a disciplined neutral response, because there is no such thing as values that are independent of human beings, no matter how strong the illusion that they are "part of the cosmos", or descended from God, or whatever. This is NOT the same as a personal belief that there are *no* values -- it is that each person and/or culture has their *own*. So for me, the ONLY non-negotiable divider (justifying careful and measured unilateral action) is truly and purely anti-social views, and the actual nature (and causes) of which should, to the extent practical, be parsed out.
"Anti-social" doesn't apply to all sadism. You and I and the vast majority feel pain at the infliction of pain on others. Since we have the same values on this, and we elect (vote, etc.) not to allow (physical, and in certain cases mental) pain to be inflicted, for nearly all scenarios. Yet there are also S&M people who find it not only acceptable but desirable, and usually avoid the non-like-minded. To the extent they allow their proclivities to be exercised (just as with pedophiles) in the open in our society, they are not only frowned upon but committing (our elected) crimes, and are punished. I have no problem with that. But, say, if all humans were sadists, it could be possible for it to be allowed, and simply caution the sadism-receiver to always "watch out". We've actually had that situation before re children, with the former acceptability of corporal punishment. We must always recognize our relativist position as humans.
Also, not long ago, it was one of the worst moral things imaginable to be gay, or to be an unwed mother. Further back, slavery, racism, associated social discrimination, and a host of other attitudes and associated punishments were, in the West, considered normal and acceptable, even while political disagreements were emerging. People then weren't stupid and/or ignorant -- they actually believed, in good faith and with all kinds of rationalizations, in these things. But times change, and so what is considered unacceptable, and even "evil", absolutely changes.
Right now, the case of Gaza war is an excellent example of this being split with comparable-sized sides in the West. You know full well that many Israeli supporters think absolutely the opposite of the way (most of) us here on this blog -- but they do so sincerely, as painful and incomprehensible as that is to us. Once again, stupidity and ignorance are simply not the only drivers, because there is also most often a different conception of morality. They are, well-arguably from our POV, exercising sociopathic responses due to cultural and other conditioning. But the heavy lifting of changing this is up to *us*, not to those we consider unacceptable.
Regarding the psychopaths and sociopaths in high places, I will not identify them as "evil". The word is simply too laden with magical thinking, and implies some sort of necessary static state in them, "the other". Instead, I'll acknowledge psychopaths to be the *closest to* what most called "evil", being almost incorrigibly anti-social. I advocate specifically for their identification and isolation, especially from power, and of course punishment for any law-breaking.
I understand (and agree with) most of what you are saying, but here are some points to consider:
(1) anti-social is not always bad. eg. being anti-social in an Israeli Zionist society and culture is actually a GOOD and POSITIVE thing. So the context matters.
(2) Different people have different understandings of EVIL - based on their morality and the morality of the period in history, their culture, their belief systems, etc. Hence, one person's EVIL is another person's HERO (again, some examples are Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - who most people would consider EVIL)
>>You know full well that many Israeli supporters think absolutely the opposite of the way (most of) us here on this blog -- but they do so sincerely, as painful and incomprehensible as that is to us."
So how to we solve this problem (which recurs all the time in human history)?
(1) "anti-social is not always bad" -- Yes, in your meaning (in the Israel example), which I think is more like "opposing dominant values", or being rebels. What I mean by "anti-social" is the psychiatric term of pure abuse of other people, because they aren't respected generally, often for no given reasons at all. In that case, other people are treated as mere *things*, to insouciantly lie to, to malevolently use for one's benefit, to ignore at will, to torture, etc.
(2) "Different people have different understandings of EVIL" -- Agreed, but I think here you mean something more like "Different people have different understandings of what, and consequently who, is EVIL". But the concept of the word "evil" is still about identifying extreme, incorrigible, and unacceptable immorality, often calling for some kinds of mass action in response.
"So how to we solve this problem (which recurs all the time in human history)?"
The first thing to do is to find a way to give up our natural inclination to use the label "evil". As I mentioned in my first post, the word connotes what I call a "magical", or mysterious, inscrutable quality, one that simultaneously allows us to ignore the causes -- i.e., once we've decided something/someone is evil, we exit negotiation thinking, and enter war thinking. I think this is counterproductive. That's why I'd rather we dive full-on into *why* someone or some society thinks the way they do (as much as we are able to) -- e.g. extreme stress, dysfunctional family upbringing, alien culture, sociopathy, psychopathy -- and take the route(s) called for. Good thing is, we already know how to confront all these causes -- except, probably, ethical psychopathic containment.
I am convinced the current problems we face consist of a malevolent divide-and-conquer process, led by at root by psychopaths and (apparently) incorrigible sociopaths. We just need to remember that most of the "enemy" camp, however, is NOT psychopathic/sociopathic.
Yes(ish), perhaps, but there is also "evil", such as "Sadism".
Is Sadism not "evil"? It becomes increasingly overt when you peek under rocks, and concentrated in those who rule over us.
People are different, and can act sincerely and socially but with very different values. I take a disciplined neutral response, because there is no such thing as values that are independent of human beings, no matter how strong the illusion that they are "part of the cosmos", or descended from God, or whatever. This is NOT the same as a personal belief that there are *no* values -- it is that each person and/or culture has their *own*. So for me, the ONLY non-negotiable divider (justifying careful and measured unilateral action) is truly and purely anti-social views, and the actual nature (and causes) of which should, to the extent practical, be parsed out.
"Anti-social" doesn't apply to all sadism. You and I and the vast majority feel pain at the infliction of pain on others. Since we have the same values on this, and we elect (vote, etc.) not to allow (physical, and in certain cases mental) pain to be inflicted, for nearly all scenarios. Yet there are also S&M people who find it not only acceptable but desirable, and usually avoid the non-like-minded. To the extent they allow their proclivities to be exercised (just as with pedophiles) in the open in our society, they are not only frowned upon but committing (our elected) crimes, and are punished. I have no problem with that. But, say, if all humans were sadists, it could be possible for it to be allowed, and simply caution the sadism-receiver to always "watch out". We've actually had that situation before re children, with the former acceptability of corporal punishment. We must always recognize our relativist position as humans.
Also, not long ago, it was one of the worst moral things imaginable to be gay, or to be an unwed mother. Further back, slavery, racism, associated social discrimination, and a host of other attitudes and associated punishments were, in the West, considered normal and acceptable, even while political disagreements were emerging. People then weren't stupid and/or ignorant -- they actually believed, in good faith and with all kinds of rationalizations, in these things. But times change, and so what is considered unacceptable, and even "evil", absolutely changes.
Right now, the case of Gaza war is an excellent example of this being split with comparable-sized sides in the West. You know full well that many Israeli supporters think absolutely the opposite of the way (most of) us here on this blog -- but they do so sincerely, as painful and incomprehensible as that is to us. Once again, stupidity and ignorance are simply not the only drivers, because there is also most often a different conception of morality. They are, well-arguably from our POV, exercising sociopathic responses due to cultural and other conditioning. But the heavy lifting of changing this is up to *us*, not to those we consider unacceptable.
Regarding the psychopaths and sociopaths in high places, I will not identify them as "evil". The word is simply too laden with magical thinking, and implies some sort of necessary static state in them, "the other". Instead, I'll acknowledge psychopaths to be the *closest to* what most called "evil", being almost incorrigibly anti-social. I advocate specifically for their identification and isolation, especially from power, and of course punishment for any law-breaking.
I understand (and agree with) most of what you are saying, but here are some points to consider:
(1) anti-social is not always bad. eg. being anti-social in an Israeli Zionist society and culture is actually a GOOD and POSITIVE thing. So the context matters.
(2) Different people have different understandings of EVIL - based on their morality and the morality of the period in history, their culture, their belief systems, etc. Hence, one person's EVIL is another person's HERO (again, some examples are Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - who most people would consider EVIL)
>>You know full well that many Israeli supporters think absolutely the opposite of the way (most of) us here on this blog -- but they do so sincerely, as painful and incomprehensible as that is to us."
So how to we solve this problem (which recurs all the time in human history)?
(1) "anti-social is not always bad" -- Yes, in your meaning (in the Israel example), which I think is more like "opposing dominant values", or being rebels. What I mean by "anti-social" is the psychiatric term of pure abuse of other people, because they aren't respected generally, often for no given reasons at all. In that case, other people are treated as mere *things*, to insouciantly lie to, to malevolently use for one's benefit, to ignore at will, to torture, etc.
(2) "Different people have different understandings of EVIL" -- Agreed, but I think here you mean something more like "Different people have different understandings of what, and consequently who, is EVIL". But the concept of the word "evil" is still about identifying extreme, incorrigible, and unacceptable immorality, often calling for some kinds of mass action in response.
"So how to we solve this problem (which recurs all the time in human history)?"
The first thing to do is to find a way to give up our natural inclination to use the label "evil". As I mentioned in my first post, the word connotes what I call a "magical", or mysterious, inscrutable quality, one that simultaneously allows us to ignore the causes -- i.e., once we've decided something/someone is evil, we exit negotiation thinking, and enter war thinking. I think this is counterproductive. That's why I'd rather we dive full-on into *why* someone or some society thinks the way they do (as much as we are able to) -- e.g. extreme stress, dysfunctional family upbringing, alien culture, sociopathy, psychopathy -- and take the route(s) called for. Good thing is, we already know how to confront all these causes -- except, probably, ethical psychopathic containment.
I am convinced the current problems we face consist of a malevolent divide-and-conquer process, led by at root by psychopaths and (apparently) incorrigible sociopaths. We just need to remember that most of the "enemy" camp, however, is NOT psychopathic/sociopathic.