• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Does evil look less evil the further you 'telescope' your view of an event?

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Does evil look less evil the further you 'telescope' your view of an event?

To take a small example, suppose you a random person standing in a McDonald's, and you see someone be really rude to the cashier.

Now suppose you weren't there, but a third party tells you about it.

Now suppose time has passed, and you are a random person reading the biography of the person who was rude; they turned out to be a famous inventor who revolutionized fuel cell technology and ended reliance on fossil fuels. This incident comes into the book as one of those little illustrations that let you into understanding the totality of someone's personality.

Suppose more time has passed, and you are reading a book on the typical psychology of inventive personalities, and how certain kinds of behaviors are paired (this is real) like creativity and disagreeableness.

-------------

My opinion of what should happen has done a 360 by the time I reach this last story. If I'm right up close to the event, I view the rudeness as evil. If I'm very far away, I actively desire it to take place if it encourages creativity and a better future.

I think this effect generalizes across many different kinds of evil. Is it inconsistent with morality, and is there a way to reconcile the big picture with the close up?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
s there a way to reconcile the big picture with the close up?

Relativity gives us the big picture, and quantum mechanics gives us the close up. But so far we are unable to reconcile them. So perhaps it is equally difficult to reconcile the big picture and the close up of morality.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Relativity gives us the big picture, and quantum mechanics gives us the close up. But so far we are unable to reconcile them. So perhaps it is equally difficult to reconcile the big picture and the close up of morality.

Non sequitur. Those are two independent sets unrelated to each other.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Non sequitur. Those are two independent sets unrelated to each other.

I am suggesting that physics and morality are analogous.

And as you say, there is no obvious connection rather the analogy is suggestive of a sequitur. An unknown sequitur to be sure.

We seek here, we seek there, we seek everywhere for the unknown sequitur.

There are known knowns, there are unknown knowns, and there are even unknown unknowns, so surely we can find an unknown sequitur in there somewhere if we rummage around.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Yes, positive acts will extenuate my perception of an individual. Phil Spector allegedly murdered a woman and Bill Cosby allegedly raped 30 or so women but I view them differently than the ordinary criminal who hasn't contributed to society. In fact, I'd probably give Spector a reduced sentence because of his contributions in music.
 

Crabs

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
1,518
Does evil look less evil the further you 'telescope' your view of an event?

To take a small example, suppose you a random person standing in a McDonald's, and you see someone be really rude to the cashier.

Now suppose you weren't there, but a third party tells you about it.

i think most events that people witness firsthand have a greater emotional impact than hearing about it from a third party. car crashes, natural disasters, violent tragedies, et cetera. even seeing photographs may evoke more emotion than having it explained to you or reading about it.

depending on how "evil" a person was at a particular point in their life, the amount of time that elapses may impact other's perception of them in the long run because people change over time.

Now suppose time has passed, and you are a random person reading the biography of the person who was rude; they turned out to be a famous inventor who revolutionized fuel cell technology and ended reliance on fossil fuels. This incident comes into the book as one of those little illustrations that let you into understanding the totality of someone's personality.

the nazis made a lot of scientific contributions, mostly at the expense of innocent people who were experimented on against their will. i don't think most people would exonerate these scientists because of their accomplishments or excuse their crimes against humanity.

it really depends on the event in question and how subjectively evil it is. third party accounts aren't always accurate anyway; and they don't necessarily reveal both sides of the story. was the person at mcdonald's being rude to the cashier because the cashier was being rude to the customer before the third party arrived? maybe the cashier and customer were acquainted with each other prior to the incident and there's bad blood between them.

Suppose more time has passed, and you are reading a book on the typical psychology of inventive personalities, and how certain kinds of behaviors are paired (this is real) like creativity and disagreeableness.

-------------

My opinion of what should happen has done a 360 by the time I reach this last story. If I'm right up close to the event, I view the rudeness as evil. If I'm very far away, I actively desire it to take place if it encourages creativity and a better future.

I think this effect generalizes across many different kinds of evil. Is it inconsistent with morality, and is there a way to reconcile the big picture with the close up?

i don't think disagreeableness necessarily equates to being caustic or rude. it might just be someone who stands up for their beliefs in the face of opposition. rosa parks disagreed with the mandate to give up her seat, but she wasn't being mean. creativity is more associated with thinking outside of the box and not going with the flow or strictly conforming to outward influences.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The short answer is no.

The long answer is that this all sounds like an attempt to rationalise evil, so what is someone did one reprehensible thing so long as they have so many other redeeming features or qualities or have made, seemingly redemptive, contributions quite apart from what evil they have done.

Rationalising is after the fact judgement and theorising about something which has been an affect or emotion driven action, its likely to cause a reoccurence rather than prompt the individual to be cognizant of their actions and that allow that insight to prevent it being repeated. Hell, in most cases even the insight is insufficient to change but a good rationalisation is definitely not sufficient, not even a beginning of being close, its more likely to make up part of resistance to insights.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The short answer is no.

The long answer is that this all sounds like an attempt to rationalise evil, so what is someone did one reprehensible thing so long as they have so many other redeeming features or qualities or have made, seemingly redemptive, contributions quite apart from what evil they have done.

Rationalising is after the fact judgement and theorising about something which has been an affect or emotion driven action, its likely to cause a reoccurence rather than prompt the individual to be cognizant of their actions and that allow that insight to prevent it being repeated. Hell, in most cases even the insight is insufficient to change but a good rationalisation is definitely not sufficient, not even a beginning of being close, its more likely to make up part of resistance to insights.

No, it is an observation about my own tendencies in evaluating historical figures as opposed to people I know.

I judge historical figures based mainly on whether their life trajectory was useful or not, along with a healthy dose of whether or not they made sense to me.

This isn't to do with my own life, where I resist rationalization on the basis that it leads one to become unmoored from the restraints of social bonds, and thus free to commit all kinds of evil acts without it really sinking in very well.

But does that hold true after the fact for famous individuals? Just because rationalization would be bad for me in the first person, does that also mean it is bad for others viewing from the future and in the third person?
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
i don't think disagreeableness necessarily equates to being caustic or rude. it might just be someone who stands up for their beliefs in the face of opposition. rosa parks disagreed with the mandate to give up her seat, but she wasn't being mean. creativity is more associated with thinking outside of the box and not going with the flow or strictly conforming to outward influences.

Exactly, but if a person for whatever reason is freed from the thought of the group, aren't they also probably more likely to be freed from the morals of the group, which are a part of the thought?

I can't help but think that it would be undesirable for society if many people were this way. Just because they behave decently when there is just one or two of them doesn't mean they would in large numbers. Most of the 'great men' of history would, in my opinion, have been incalculably damaging to society just as easily as they were beneficial; they just happened to blow in a positive direction for whatever reason.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, positive acts will extenuate my perception of an individual. Phil Spector allegedly murdered a woman and Bill Cosby allegedly raped 30 or so women but I view them differently than the ordinary criminal who hasn't contributed to society. In fact, I'd probably give Spector a reduced sentence because of his contributions in music.

Is that because there are few enough of these individuals that making exceptions of them wouldn't break down group norms?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
No, it is an observation about my own tendencies in evaluating historical figures as opposed to people I know.

I judge historical figures based mainly on whether their life trajectory was useful or not, along with a healthy dose of whether or not they made sense to me.

This isn't to do with my own life, where I resist rationalization on the basis that it leads one to become unmoored from the restraints of social bonds, and thus free to commit all kinds of evil acts without it really sinking in very well.

But does that hold true after the fact for famous individuals? Just because rationalization would be bad for me in the first person, does that also mean it is bad for others viewing from the future and in the third person?

I'm unimpressed with "history will be my judge" and uber mensch-unter mensch thinking.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm unimpressed with "history will be my judge" and uber mensch-unter mensch thinking.

It happens, though. Take the American Founding fathers. Glorified constantly. Had they lost, they'd be given a footnote, and people would give the 'balanced' view that the colonists did have grievances, but that they were short-sighted and not taking the viewpoint of Great Britain into account (which they weren't), and that there were still legal means to go about their goals.

The only reason anyone cares is because they won.

I can almost guarantee that, because it is kind of what is taught in Australia, if I'm not mistaken, about a bunch of miners who rebelled unsuccessfully. [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] Your input?

Read this if interested: Eureka Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
It happens, though. Take the American Founding fathers. Glorified constantly. Had they lost, they'd be given a footnote, and people would give the 'balanced' view that the colonists did have grievances, but that they were short-sighted and not taking the viewpoint of Great Britain into account (which they weren't), and that there were still legal means to go about their goals.

The only reason anyone cares is because they won.

I can almost guarantee that, because it is kind of what is taught in Australia, if I'm not mistaken, about a bunch of miners who rebelled unsuccessfully. @Mole Your input?

Read this if interested: Eureka Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Left try to valorise rebellion in Australia. However no rebellion succeeded. And we have had no revolution.

Perhaps our signal political change occurred in 1948 when we were given the choice of Social Democracy or Liberal Democracy. And we voted for Liberal Democracy. And we have remained Liberal Democratic on both sides of Parliament ever since. Fortunately history has shown we made the right decision.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
It happens, though. Take the American Founding fathers. Glorified constantly. Had they lost, they'd be given a footnote, and people would give the 'balanced' view that the colonists did have grievances, but that they were short-sighted and not taking the viewpoint of Great Britain into account (which they weren't), and that there were still legal means to go about their goals.

The only reason anyone cares is because they won.

I can almost guarantee that, because it is kind of what is taught in Australia, if I'm not mistaken, about a bunch of miners who rebelled unsuccessfully. [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION] Your input?

Read this if interested: Eureka Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History is written by the victors.

I am completely influenced by the modern day skeptics like Marx and Freud but it sounds more like you are driving in the same direction as Nietzsche which I think is mistaken, there are ways to interpret Nietzsche which are not monsterous, just as there are ways of interpreting Machavelli in the same way and his reverence for Roman pagan culture, with it reverence for deified Fortune but the up shots of them are the great men of history and that monsterous creed has lead and leads to monsterous deeds. That is certain.

I believe evil is evil, no ends justify the means, means are ends and bound up so that evil means result in evil ends.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The Left try to valorise rebellion in Australia. However no rebellion succeeded. And we have had no revolution.

Perhaps our signal political change occurred in 1948 when we were given the choice of Social Democracy or Liberal Democracy. And we voted for Liberal Democracy. And we have remained Liberal Democratic on both sides of Parliament ever since. Fortunately history has shown we made the right decision.

History will judge eh? Who writes history?

There are rebellions and revolutions all the time, the world over, sometimes they happen in slow motion and people dont even recognise them for what they are, they are all performed by elites, whose hands are strengthened on generation after the next by time, and their hench men or PR men in politics with ideologies like neo-liberalism and capitalism.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
BlackDog said:
Is that because there are few enough of these individuals that making exceptions of them wouldn't break down group norms?

No, I just prefer to look at the totality of an individual's life. Martin Luther King was a serial adulterer but the damage caused by this behavior pales in comparison to the good that he did.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
No, I just prefer to look at the totality of an individual's life. Martin Luther King was a serial adulterer but the damage caused by this behavior pales in comparison to the good that he did.

That is interesting, a different point to I think the one the OP was making though.

I remember an old chain mail e-mail which went around which had three character profiles, one was churchill, portrayed as a drunk, one was roosevelt, who had experimented with opium I think, and one was Hitler, a dutiful patriot, asking you which you would choose and only revealing their identities after the fact.
 
Top