The Purpose of Evil

[Lark]

If this is the case, then evil is necessary because good is set up as its opposite. It needs to oppose something. The definitions make a dichotomous pair. Denying the existence of evil in such as system would require denying the existence of good as well, and point to some other yardstick with which to measure actions and intentions.

I think that's a virtuous dichotomy though, at least if you conceive as good as the "thing itself" and evil as its "shadow", good is therefore positive and evil the inferior negative. Anything else is manichean equivalence or equality assumed between the two opposites.

 

[Researcher]

Why can nobody ever define evil? Maybe the meaning is different for every type?

>> Does the general population think that "those on another function spectrum than they are" are evil?
Like the Fi hating the Ti for being Ti, or the Ti hating the Fi for being Fi?

I don't think the general population of TypeC is that tribal. At least I hope not.

I don't think the general population of the world is aware of typology. Probably the three biggest determinants of morality are religion, culture, and parenting, which is how people end up with such diverse ideas about good and evil.

About the general population being unaware of typology: You don't have to exactly define their type to hate them, and you don't have to exactly define their type to know there is such a thing as types in general.
But without knowing there are types in general you might blame it on the wrong thing, instead of their type. The uninformed population about "the types" might think that it's because these other-type poor bastards had some trauma in their early years, and now these other-types ended-up fucked-up... (But actually the other-types are just another type and they are not fucked-up at all).

So, if you don't know about types, and believe everyone is the same, then you start hating them for being their type, then they hate you even more for being your type. This can escalate pretty badly. Especially if similar types group together, and get separated from other types.

Isn't it the separation of types, into big one-type-only collectives, which causes evil, perversion and other ugly stuff? (Actually "the left" and "the right" is a kind of typology example.)

Obviously no type can survive alone, they are all caricatures. And all types are doomed to perversion, depravity, sickness and evil when alone, if they are not refreshed by other types. Its just a different type of perversion/depravity/sickness/evil for each type, but applies to all.

Only if the different types work together, they can accomplish greatness together. And greatness is obviously: good / not evil.


Nice conclusion here:
1) The belief that everyone is the same, and thus not knowing about the types (and thinking the perfect human is possible and is just 1 type, whether projected in yourself or another) is evil.
2) Knowing about types (and accepting the types, and your own humility as a type) is good.


Even more evil:
Causing (1) globally. And keeping (2) for the 1%.

 

[Passacaglia]

I dont believe any of those things were necessary evils or even necessary suffering but they are great examples of avoidable evil or avoidable suffering and in much of the world they have been eradicated or are the subject of efforts to eradicate them or contain, reduce and manage them.

I think those things are rationalisations or excuses for the evils, after the fact, like rationalisations in an individual for behaviours, in part arising from the fact that life can only be understood backwards but paradoxically has to be lived forwards.

However, I would say that conflict, competition, diversity and alternatives from which to choose are all objective goods, sometimes they are confused with or as bad things but that's a product, to my mind, of ideology and prejudices more than anything else.

Agreed. I think that 'developmental evil' is largely inevitable because people are flawed. We're prone to be small-minded, greedy, fearful, and we have a way of dehumanizing people who look or talk differently. But it isn't necessary evil.

Take the European conquest of the Americas, for example, and the continued oppression of the native folks after the European settlers eventually became the new Americans. Did the conquistadors have to kill a bunch of south Americans to convince them how cool guns and steel are? No. Did native Americans have to be forced out of their homelands to make room for the pilgrims? No; there was room, and bargains to be struck. After the U.S. bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, did we have to force a bunch of native folks into smaller and smaller reservations? (And hey, fuck the weak ones that die along the Trail of Tears! They're just savages.) No; we could have bargained and worked for our place in the new world, and still ended up with our Mega-Malls.

But that's more or less how history goes. We dehumanize and push others out of our way in order to make life easier for ourselves, while painting ourselves as the heroes. And then later generations rationalize it under the rug.

 

[Lark]

Agreed. I think that 'developmental evil' is largely inevitable because people are flawed. We're prone to be small-minded, greedy, fearful, and we have a way of dehumanizing people who look or talk differently. But it isn't necessary evil.

Take the European conquest of the Americas, for example, and the continued oppression of the native folks after the European settlers eventually became the new Americans. Did the conquistadors have to kill a bunch of south Americans to convince them how cool guns and steel are? No. Did native Americans have to be forced out of their homelands to make room for the pilgrims? No; there was room, and bargains to be struck. After the U.S. bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, did we have to force a bunch of native folks into smaller and smaller reservations? (And hey, fuck the weak ones that die along the Trail of Tears! They're just savages.) No; we could have bargained and worked for our place in the new world, and still ended up with our Mega-Malls.

But that's more or less how history goes. We dehumanize and push others out of our way in order to make life easier for ourselves, while painting ourselves as the heroes. And then later generations rationalize it under the rug.

I'm inclined to actually believe that by nature humans are more benign and benevolent than all that, however I think that entropy, the legacies of past times when other more savage conditions reigned and the blind alleys of reform and adjustment in response to technological changes, resource pressures etc. has given rise to conscious and unconscious social character to which people conform to be materially successful or gain status or power.

There is hope however because I dont think that human nature is infinitely malleable and I dont believe that humans are infinitely adaptable either, so the status quo is not permanent and will experience crisis.

Although a good outcome is not inevitable either, worse things are possible than the status quo and crisis can be an opportunity for deterioration as much as an opportunity for change and growth.

What I would say about the past which you describe is that while the conquistadors were a rum lot you should read about the people they suppressed and killed, their traditions, religious order and norms were terrifying, even at the time of the conquistadors invasion, its the same as the thugee cult in India and the british, it may never have been as terrible as the depiction in Indiana Jones but the Kali cults were terrifying by any standard, each of these struggles were in their own ways the necessary evil prevailing over the greater evil, actually, if you ask me, not all of the indian tribes were to be judged as being as violent or wicked as one another though, that's like judging the whole of europe together, french, germans, belgians, turks, swedes etc. etc. but some of them were terrible too.

Also there are horrible realities which are difficult for anyone living in a modern liberal society which seeks to foster non-discriminatory attitudes to relate to but they were realities for the people living in them, such as race war and racism, which was not exclusively a white invention or ideology by any stretch of the imagination, if you read any serious history of the indian wars or frontier settlers you may understand this more, a lot of the frontier settlers were individuals fleeing tyranny, sectarianism, competiting nationalisms, other political struggles they wanted no part off but they werent welcome in the seemingly empty plains they set up home in and became the unwilling pawns or victims of territorial disputes.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Evil is relativ...good is relativ...morality is relativ

 

[Mole]

Its a mistake to conflate temporal power with God and divinity.

Although power does tend to corrupt and absolute power would corrupt absolutely. Its a consequence of people being human, all too human.

Yes, and it seems to there are institutions which foster good and institutions which foster evil.

Our criminal law for instance almost exclusively sees degrees of evil in individuals. Our criminal law is not set up to see degrees of evil in institutions.

Yet we know that institutions determine to what degree a country is good of evil. The institutions of North Korea largely determine that North Korea is an evil country, while for instance the institutions of Australia largely determine Australia is a good country.

Mbti is a peculiar institution in that it doesn't distinguish between good and evil. Mbti is set up to pander to vanity and fantasy. Mbti is essentially an apologia for evil, an excuse for evil, begun by Carl Jung and codified by Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers.

Evil of course needs an excuse. Evil cannot come out into the light of day. Evil cannot stand in its own two feet. Evil needs an apologia to stifle the conscience. We need permission to do evil. And some institutions give permission to do evil and some do not.

 

[Lark]

Evil is relativ...good is relativ...morality is relativ

OK, I'll bite, how so? What evidence have you?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and it seems to there are institutions which foster good and institutions which foster evil.

Our criminal law for instance almost exclusively sees degrees of evil in individuals. Our criminal law is not set up to see degrees of evil in institutions.

Yet we know that institutions determine to what degree a country is good of evil. The institutions of North Korea largely determine that North Korea is an evil country, while for instance the institutions of Australia largely determine Australia is a good country.

Mbti is a peculiar institution in that it doesn't distinguish between good and evil. Mbti is set up to pander to vanity and fantasy. Mbti is essentially an apologia for evil, an excuse for evil, begun by Carl Jung and codified by Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers.

Evil of course needs an excuse. Evil cannot come out into the light of day. Evil cannot stand in its own two feet. Evil needs an apologia to stifle the conscience. We need permission to do evil. And some institutions give permission to do evil and some do not.

Hmm, maybe.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

OK, I'll bite, how so? What evidence have you?

The evidence is that the morality is completly based on our own subjective view of reality and created based on one sided and rigid view points. Kiling people is bad, but kiling a killer is good, because we have a moral justification for kiling people who kill people... think of it for a while...just wtf?!

 

[Mole]

The evidence is that the morality is completly based on our own subjective view of reality and created based on one sided and rigid view points. Kiling people is bad, but kiling a killer is good, because we have a moral justification for kiling people who kill people... think of it for a while...just wtf?!

The difference between imagination and reality is that reality is not subjective. Reality is independent of us, while imagination is not.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

The difference between imagination and reality is that reality is not subjective. Reality is independent of us, while imagination is not.

the view of the reality can be subjective, because its view can be completly a work of our own imgination

 

[Lark]

The evidence is that the morality is completly based on our own subjective view of reality and created based on one sided and rigid view points.

I'm sorry, what morality? My subjective view of reality? Me personally or are you suggesting that each individual invents a moral code for themselves? In what way is it rigid and one sided?

Kiling people is bad, but kiling a killer is good, because we have a moral justification for kiling people who kill people... think of it for a while...just wtf?!

Hmm, the implication is that killing can not be justified am I correct? Well, that can be consistently viewed as a prohibition upon capital punishment or the death penalty, if that is what you are meaning, although it is not clear what you are meaning, you could be discussing revenge or retaliation by private individuals, a duel perhaps?

It is perhaps a separate topic but I would say that I can conceive of situations in which killing would be justified, if the grievance was sufficient, if an individual was causing sufficient harm to others, including killing, that others need to intervene, the authorities or some properly constituted and legal group with the monopoly on force preferably but that can be a bit idealistic sometimes.

 

[Evee]

It is human to be good and evil just like it is human to have the conscious and the unconscious.

The Greeks had the morally pure Apollo, and the unrestrained, instinctive Dionysus, who together embodied the never ending struggle between the thing which seeks to control, and the unapprehended.

Conscious morality says 'Thou shalt not', while the unconscious tempts 'Thou shalt'.

Which god favors thee?

 

[Lark]

the view of the reality can be subjective, because its view can be completly a work of our own imgination

This is true, it may be the case, we may be a brain swiming around disembodied in a tank, however, it is both improbable and unlikely.

On the other hand, the view that subjectivity prevails is more likely to be a consequence or legacy of Descartes' philosophy, his "I think, therefore I am", responding to the fresh doubts in his day about whether any individual could trust their senses given knowledge of refraction and other such instances of things not being as they seem, by building all up from the subjective, individual thinker.

From there its a hop, skip and jump to concluding that all is individual and social construction.

Although the earlier knowledge of there being a cosmic order existing independently of mans apprehension or comprehension of it makes more sense to me, there is cause and effect, there are consequences and there is objectivity.

Now, this can be difficult, particularly when complexity is involved rather than simpler, sometimes singular, understandings upon which consensus prevails but simply because something is difficult, demanding and defies an easy understanding should not be conflated with impossible.

 

[Lark]

It is human to be good and evil just like it is human to have the conscious and the unconscious.

The Greeks had the morally pure Apollo, and the unrestrained, instinctive Dionysus, who together embodied the never ending struggle between the thing which seeks to control, and the unapprehended.

Conscious morality says 'Thou shalt not', while the unconscious tempts 'Thou shalt'.

Which god favor's thee?

Dionysus was the God of tits and wine wasnt he? I remember reading something about him resembling old nick in his appearence.

I am not sure that morality is conscious and immorality unconscious, perhaps it is but even in Freud's model of conscious and unconscious it is tripartite, ego, id and then the superego which is uber moralising. That is to say that the unconscious could be a moralising force, not simply seeking permission, it could be exacting conflicts and compelling sanctions upon temptation too.

Personally I think that morality is not all negative, its not all about shalt, it could be shall, Jesus was less shalt, less legalistic, more thy shall but his direction was very demanding in the shalls or shoulds.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I'm sorry, what morality? My subjective view of reality? Me personally or are you suggesting that each individual invents a moral code for themselves? In what way is it rigid and one sided?

I don't think everyone builds their own moral structures, because however morialy independent we desire to be, morality includes well being of other people around us and therefor will always be influenced by the external circumstances. What I am saying is, that our social and general view and opinion on morality is subjective, it's not a subjectivity of the individual, but it's a subjective of the society as the whole.. You may argue that if something is shared in the external reality, it can not be subjective, but in every society there are different, or at least slightly not similar moral, or ethical norms and exceptions of behavioral codex, that can't be met among all the members of society. For example, when slavery was still legal, you were marked as immoral, or disturbed if you fell in love, or made a friendship with african american and these people were viewed as the lowest class of society. Nowdays, thinking like that would probably get you into pretty big troubles and made you seem absolutly immoral in the eyes of the majority. That's why I am saying morality is subjective and aslo dependant on patterns and trends within a culture.

Hmm, the implication is that killing can not be justified am I correct? Well, that can be consistently viewed as a prohibition upon capital punishment or the death penalty, if that is what you are meaning, although it is not clear what you are meaning, you could be discussing revenge or retaliation by private individuals, a duel perhaps?

No, my implification is, that our morality is so contradictory, that killing of one and a killing of one are not put on the same relevance. We justify killing by killing, therefor justify evel with evil to create good, which would work if this would be math and we would deduct two negative numbers to get a positive one, but I think it doesn't work that way when it comes to ethics.

It is perhaps a separate topic but I would say that I can conceive of situations in which killing would be justified, if the grievance was sufficient, if an individual was causing sufficient harm to others, including killing, that others need to intervene, the authorities or some properly constituted and legal group with the monopoly on force preferably but that can be a bit idealistic sometimes.

Imagine a story of a killer. A guy who grew up in a family with abusive father who had raped his mother several times. This guy decided, that he won't tolerate father's abusive behavior and as very young child he killed him in his sleep to protect his mother. The mother couldn't ever fully recovered from the psychologically disturbing marriage and became a victim of a long term depression, mental issues and this son had to take care of her. Because of the anger he felt for his father and the injustice that has been done to his family, he decided to kill everyone, every man who reminds him of his father. Now who's the real victim and who's the real killer?

 

[danseen]

Evil doesnt exist....

 

[Mole]

the view of the reality can be subjective, because its view can be completly a work of our own imgination

The work of children is play and the purpose of play is to learn the difference between reality and imagination.

So to complete one of our most important life tasks is to complete the life task of play.

But we only have to read the posts on Central to know that this life task for many is incomplete.

 

[Mole]

It is human to be good and evil just like it is human to have the conscious and the unconscious.

The Greeks had the morally pure Apollo, and the unrestrained, instinctive Dionysus, who together embodied the never ending struggle between the thing which seeks to control, and the unapprehended.

Conscious morality says 'Thou shalt not', while the unconscious tempts 'Thou shalt'.

Which god favors thee?

Those who were lucky enough to have parents who practised the helping mode of child rearing can trust their own unconscious to lead in the direction of empathy and creativity.

But those who were unlucky enough to have parents who were authoritarian or abusive, will discover an unconsious which they can't trust to be empathic and creative.

Popular culture talks about being overcome by our 'demons'. Well, our 'demons' are the results of authoritarian or abusive child rearing.

 

[Evee]

Those who were lucky enough to have parents who practised the helping mode of child rearing can trust their own unconscious to lead in the direction of empathy and creativity.

But those who were unlucky enough to have parents who were authoritarian or abusive, will discover an unconsious which they can't trust to be empathic and creative.

Popular culture talks about being overcome by our 'demons'. Well, our 'demons' are the results of authoritarian or abusive child rearing.

You're right, Mole.

 

[Cygnus]

It is human to be good and evil just like it is human to have the conscious and the unconscious.

The Greeks had the morally pure Apollo, and the unrestrained, instinctive Dionysus, who together embodied the never ending struggle between the thing which seeks to control, and the unapprehended.

Conscious morality says 'Thou shalt not', while the unconscious tempts 'Thou shalt'.

Which god favors thee?

I'm scared.