Re: Thoughts on Evil (Prince Trippy) 04/06/23
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prince Trippy (I believe it is, but we'll call him PT for short)
recently recorded some "Thoughts on Evil"[1]. Somehow, he managed to
end each paragraph perfectly justified, with no text hanging, and
every period at the full margin width. I don't know if this was done
on purpose, or if it had anything to do with the subject matter, but
it did stand out to me.
I really like reading on verisimilitudes, and not just for the
wonderful formatting.
Before replying with my chatter, I'll point out something that PT
neglected, which is the definition of the word Evil. The Collaborative
International Dictionary of English gives this primary definition:
"Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being
of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient
beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to {good}." This glazes
over a full moral definition, which should include accountability as a
qualifier, but it works for the items that PT seems to have addressed.
While it would take far more than a single gopher post (or a single
author!) to completely cover the philosophical subject of evil, one
might cover thoughts on evil in as few or as many words as one wishes.
PT touched on these at least:
1. The differences between man and beast. In terms of raw suffering, I
think PT had a reasonable point. Animals as a group torment other
animals en masse and in perpetuity (if selectively in some cases), as
a matter of course in their existence. PT asserts that "civilized man
has grown to cease with torture and to reduce suffering". If you
exclude the insane (using perhaps a collective / average definition of
sanity spanning the last hundred years) from the group called
"civilized man", then you have a strong case. The outliers and
exceptions are so few that any reasonable person would exclude them
automatically (even if the News and Propagandists make these few out
to be more than they are in truth).
On the topic of empathy in animals, the question has been addressed by
many over the years. We look for shared traits in our animal friends,
and we find some few examples. PT's simple claim was that "many
animals lack [empathy]", and that seems perfectly reasonable on the
surface. His larger claim that this lack of empathy is what makes
animals more evil than men is something I take exception with; but,
only because my mind wanders to the moral and religious questions of
evil without accountability. In terms of suffering only, perhaps he is
right. If you look at accountability differences between man and
beast, I feel the question is more blurry (animals being, in my view,
unaccountable or innocent by nature, in spite of their tendencies).
Briefly, this bit: "Regardless, from man's view, reality is his, as it
should be. I choose to see most livestock as biological machines, who
exist for man's use, and for no other particular reasons." Seems to me
a justification for eating animals to one's heart's content. I enjoy
meat, I won't lie. And religiously, I'm inclined to side with PT here
(in that animals are here for our use). However, the view that
livestock are biological machines and nothing else seems a bit
overdone. There are a great many realities connected to the existence
of animals, in the balance of our planet's continuance. Viewing them
in a purely exploitative framework may be dangerous; and evil, in that
it could certainly contribute to evil in the form of suffering, even
and especially to future humans and present animals. A safer viewpoint
might be one where we view animals as a stewardship.
2. Flavors of men. PT creates two classes of evil men, lesser and
greater. The lesser, more base version being the man who cannot or
will not deny their animal tendencies, and who seek their own
gratification at the expense of others, demonstrating a lack of
empathy. The greater being the intelligent men who subject all within
their power to whatever selfish designs they may have.
For my part, I view all mankind as falling first into the lesser evil
class, by their very nature. At least to some degree or variance, at
some point in their lives. We all must face the natural animal nature
within us, and decide (if we're blessed with that faculty) whether we
will contain it or let it run free.
Perhaps at some point, a man may become stuck in this "lesser evil"
for lack of will or education, carrying on in animalistic tendencies
with or without understanding. To exit, would one abandon evil and
master self, entering the realm of "good"; otherwise, embrace evil and
enter the realm of "greater evil"? Seems about right I suppose.
3. Higher forms of evil. Here's where things got really interesting in
PT's post. The machinations of evil people are worthy of study, as
they tend to have a very wide impact. PT spoke to the weaponization
and manipulation of language, which is now so commonplace that it
seems odd that anyone would be blind to it. It's not a new tactic; but
these days it seems like it's over-employed. I'm shocked that it still
works so well.
Perhaps PT will spend more time on the subject, I don't know. I would
like to, though I'm running out of time this evening. Specifically,
I'd love to hear his view on the motivations of higher evil. I believe
this is an area where people make many logical mistakes, leading them
to incorrect conclusions about what is going on around them. Many
people I know seem unable or unwilling to see evil, which I find
fascinating.
Last point: PT's conclusion, tucked in to his post, on how to deal
with highly evil men. "The proper way to deal with such a man is to
treat him like a 'philosophical zombie' and, since no zombie feels
pain, to harm him until, almost miraculously, understanding of
language returns to him." Maybe it was just for fun, but I got lost on
the zombie bit, which mixes fact with fiction to the befuddling of the
philosophy. Heck, it was funny and insightful at the same time, not to
be taken too seriously I think.
Thanks for the gophersite PT, I truly enjoy it.
[1]
gopher://verisimilitudes.net:70/02023-04-04
