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.
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.