Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[birdandbear]

I think evil has much less to do with actions than it does with emotional states. To me, evil is the state of taking pleasure in the suffering of others. Not just hurting and killing; a two year old who hits his chum is not evil, though he has left the other child in tears. It's liking it. Hitting him again because you like the way he cries. In a word, Cruelty.

Or take it one step farther to include wanton disregard of others suffering. The more you like it, the more evil you are. Take, for example Saddam Hussein.

*Hey! Who threw that?*

We can't know if he personally enjoys the suffering he inflicts on his people. But let's say he does not. He just doesn't care. He signs the order to gas thousands of Kurds and loses nary a wink over it. He is still evil, because it is his will that those people be killed, and their blood is on his hands. But the soldiers who carry out the order are not necessarily evil. How can they be, if they are forced into sevice with threats to their families and their lives? They have done great wrong, but no evil. They take no joy in it.
Foul, on the other hand, is quintessentially evil. He has had eons to practice his arts. He has invented thousands of tiny little ways to torture anything he touches. He loves it. His greatest joy is making good people destroy everything they love with their own hands, because he knows there is no other way in which to inflict the purest, most exquisite pain. And he does things like warping the ur-viles for fun.

At least, that's the best definition I've been able to come up with.

[hamako]

what's my stance on intent and do I think there's need for harm?

I don't think actually causing harm comes into it - intent to cause harm is the issue. WHether the intent succeeds or not isn't the point.

Intent is a huge point in itself. Not sure if traditional definition of intent could apply to this context of evil.

In a legel a perspective, intent can be inferred if, when you set out to do something, the actual outcome could have been reasonably foreseeable by someone of reasonable/aka average intellect, condition of mind etc.
EG if I threw a brick off the top of a city centre building and it smashed a car windscreen, I'd be guilty of criminal damage. I threw it off for the hell of it, didn't actually intend to cause any damage. However, it was a reasonably foreseeable result that the actual damage could occur.

Phew,

Now, I don't think that this could strictly be applied to evil - I think evil is a more direct intent - to me an evil person deliberately sets out to cause harm ( to person, life etc).

What's "harm". Traditionally harm falls into two categories - physical harm (easy to prove) and mental harm (more difficult). Simply put, it's injury, whether that be to your physical or psychological well being.

So, imo, if you set out to upset either of the above two, deliberately, you're an evil mofo. Whether you actually succeed doesn't come into it.

Begs the question to me, are there grades of evil? Like you can be a bit evil, or seriously Sith Lord evil? I'm not sure if you can put evil into bands. Maybe it's just a question of scale. If you like to cause harm/upset , you're it, you have the propensity. The real badasses just get the opportunity to play theire compulsions out on a grander scale.

It's also about conscience - think of the kid at school who liked to pull the legs off insects - evil? I don't think so, as they grow up and develop the realise the impact of what they are doing, conscience, empathy, etc.

SO are you not evil if you don't have a sense of conscience - ie true understanding of what you're doing and that in the grand order of thing it's wrong?

Psychopaths are lacking in conscience by definition, as we (the norm ? ) percieve it. Does this absolve them from being labelled evil? Are they just sick, with an illness that has terrible symptoms?

[Fist and Faith]

But the soldiers who carry out the order are not necessarily evil. How can they be, if they are forced into sevice with threats to their families and their lives? They have done great wrong, but no evil. They take no joy in it.

This is such a tough issue! I don't want to sit in my safe neighborhood trying to decide how to afford Road Runner, judging those who must weigh fairness and their conscience against the lives of their children. But I can't let them entirely off the hook. The safety of their family can't be a good enough reason to torture and kill others. They help a rabid beast stay in power, even solidify that power, ensuring that he would commit these atrocities time and time again. I don't think the threat to their families was good enough. If Saddam had enough people loyal to him to watch the families of all the people they were blackmailing, he wouldn't have needed to blackmail. If such a person or group starts gaining sufficient power in the US, I just hope I can see it far enough ahead of time to get my family away.

Anybody ever read It Can't Happen Here? I don't remember the author. It was about facism gaining power in the US. Fascinating to watch the town bully-types join right in, so that they'd have the power to hurt everybody they've known their whole lives. Kind of chilling.

I don't think actually causing harm comes into it - intent to cause harm is the issue. WHether the intent succeeds or not isn't the point.

I most definitely agree. In fact, I take things a bit further, and think that people who attempt murder should be tried for murder. Why are they rewarded for their incompetence? In their head and heart, they are murderers. They just aren't very good at it. If you put two bullets into someone, and they miraculously survive, you are a murderer. You tried to murder, and I don't see why you won't try again - maybe with me if I accidentally run into your car.

SO are you not evil if you don't have a sense of conscience - ie true understanding of what you're doing and that in the grand order of thing it's wrong?

Psychopaths are lacking in conscience by definition, as we (the norm ? ) percieve it. Does this absolve them from being labelled evil? Are they just sick, with an illness that has terrible symptoms?

Good question. I don't think we know enough about brains to answer this yet. On an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, a horrible murderer was injured. They took some of 7 of 9's nanoprobes out of her blood, and put them into the murderer's to heal his injuries. But the probes "healed" an area of his brain that was born "wrong." The specific connections that give conscience were never hooked up in him, and now they were. Suddenly he was feeling horrible pain and sickness. Turned out to be guilt from all the crap he'd done in his life. Throughout the episode, he became a good, caring person who would never hurt anyone. He was on death row, and the victim's family would not let him go, despite this new situation and the person he had become.

Of course, we don't know to what degree the human conscience is determined this way. And the character wasn't even human, just a humanoid from the other side of the galaxy. Interesting episode though.

[hamako]

F&F , I thought fascism had come to power in the US??

Good question though - can evil be excused in defence of your family?

I think maybe yes.

I suppose I'm intimating that evil acts are those that are carried out without self preserving/defending motives - ie for kicks.

Our (both US/UK/Oz/Europe) legal system backs this up - most acts of terror/violence have a defence of legal excuse - mainly was it because it was done in self defence, or in a state of unsound mind.

I can't see how you can say someone is evil for being violent towards a person who is threatening them/their family. You could argue that they are wrong in doing so, but it would be along stretch I think to say they are evil

[Fist and Faith]

I completely agree with all that. (Especially the first sentence, eh?) But self-defense is a change of topic. Quite different from the Iraqi who gassed baby Kurds because his family was threatened.

[Birinair]

Isn't evil in literature the character without empathy? All seem to have a capacity for hedonistic pleasure, and are without compunction in the means which they use to achieve that pleasure. Lord Foul seems to differ in that respect because whilst he is powerful in the land, the legends suggest he is a fallen angel, or a god that has been trapped in the land. That supernatural "evil" is more akin to the devil than to human evil characters.

What is evil in real life, well truly that is a matter of aesthetics if you are an atheist or an agnostic, or religious faith. Personally I do not like to see pain and suffering, but there have been societies which would consider themselves civilised and good (e.g. Rome) that would think nothing of dispatching other people in the most brutal of ways. Once you accept that your moral code comes from a faith or alternatively a personal aesthetic, it is possible to understand why evil people exist. If you do not accept this then there is a constant search for reasons for the existence of "evil" people.

[Skyweir]

very interesting points Birinair .. I think you are right about Foul not being entirely comparable to human evils .. but more like Satan per his supernatural status.

it is true there have been societies and the like that have gone to great lengths to dispatch those they deem in need of dispatching .. and in the most inventive and creative ways to boot!

but to me .. albeit they may have claimed a moral mandate to justify their acts .. even if genuinely believed they were upholding the 'right' .. acts that are evil are evil at the end of the day regardless of the actors asserted belief.

I think it is generally regarded that there is a universally accepted standard .. based on natural justice and universal law .. the very principals employed by the unprecedented .. retrospective judgements of the Nueremburg trials following WW2!

Some acts regardless of your belief system or the moral code you hold to .. are deemed - heinous or criminal - on the basis of the very nature of the acts.

I am not sure what you refer to Hamako when you spoke of legal excuse in relation to "most acts of terror or violence" ..

I agree if you were referring only to those acts done in self-defence of self-survival ..

However, to lay claim on a legal excuse does not justify the evil or heinous acts committed. This 'excuse' only serves to mitigate the penalty .. at least from my limited understanding.

I recall with some clarity .. a number of cases which I have laboured before .. maritime cases .. where survivors claimed killing another to survive themselves [cannibalism] .. enabled the claim of a 'legal justification' .. that their act was justified to secure their survival ..

but generally this rationale was not held to be supportable .. rather a legal excuse - was found to be more palatable .. and allowed only to mitigate the sentence of the perpetrator/s.

Acts that are 'evil' would undoubtedly be those which were also termed 'heinous' .. one could posit.

Like genocide! the extermination of the jews during WW2 .. murder of any kind .. and we come back to the degree factor .. There are probably many degree's of evilness.

.. imho evil is evil .. even if it is to defend one's family - it is still evil ..

How does one defend one's family without resorting to evil? Well resorting to another method .. that is not 'evil'

remembering that 'killing in self-defence' is not an evil .. that is justifiable! and can have a charge involving 'causing death' or 'murder' .. dismissed .. depending on the circumstances!

We have already agreed that evil .. is an act .. that is a 'wanton cause of someone elses pain or mysery' .. or something like that

wanton .. maybe equates with premeditated .. deliberate ..

and folks with mental illnesses in some cases but not all .. may indeed claim their physical/psychiatric detriment as a factor in their defence .. but these factors must be weighed against the individual circumstances of their acts.

Very interesting discussion again..

Fist and Faith!! I had no idea .. that you are also Pitch and Highdrake!!

I got the Highdrake - Pitch connection .. but not till now did I get the tri-factor relationship!!

so I get that you would be overcome by this rather sudden onslaught of compliments!! lol

[Fist and Faith]

I think it is generally regarded that there is a universally accepted standard .. based on natural justice and universal law .. the very principals employed by the unprecedented .. retrospective judgements of the Nueremburg trials following WW2!

Some acts regardless of your belief system or the moral code you hold to .. are deemed - heinous or criminal - on the basis of the very nature of the acts.

I don't think "universally accepted" is as accurate as "accepted by the majority." There's a huge difference. The first way, Hitler would have known that he was commiting evil, and did it anyway. But the second way, he could have truly thought that the human race was destined for a greatness that could not be achieved with non-aryan blood mixed in. I don't believe he thought this way. I think he, et al, got off on causing pain, and wanted power. I'm just saying that it is conceivable for someone to have such thoughts. But if the thought of what is "good" and "evil" is, indeed, universal, then he could not have thought this way.

And the majority agrees on what is right and wrong for very practical reasons. Most people don't want to be killed, so they band together - with laws against murder, alliances between nations, etc - against those who are trying to kill. Safety in numbers, after all.

I recall with some clarity .. a number of cases which I have laboured before .. maritime cases .. where survivors claimed killing another to survive themselves [cannibalism] .. enabled the claim of a 'legal justification' .. that their act was justified to secure their survival ..

but generally this rationale was not held to be supportable .. rather a legal excuse - was found to be more palatable .. and allowed only to mitigate the sentence of the perpetrator/s.

Wow! I never heard of someone killing someone else to eat them to survive! I don't think I'd let that one go as "legal justification" either. Fine to eat someone after they're dead, but to kill for it?

But I can see a person thinking, "Well, only one of us is going to live through this, and will have to eat the other to survive. My life is worth more to me than the other person's life means to me, so I'm making sure I'm the one to survive." But then why would that person admit it? Or maybe there were others involved, and somebody couldn't keep quiet?

Fist and Faith!! I had no idea .. that you are also Pitch and Highdrake!!

I got the Highdrake - Pitch connection .. but not till now did I get the tri-factor relationship!!

so I get that you would be overcome by this rather sudden onslaught of compliments!! lol

I'm not Pitch, only F&F and Highdrake. But you gave me a few pats on the back in just that one letter!:)

[Skyweir]

i think you miscomprehend me F&F

when speaking of universal law .. I am referring to a concept that was acknoweldged that can set at a minumum standard of behaviours. Beyond that established in legal institutions. A concept that surpasses maybe codification .. or underlies it!

That there are some things that are 'wrong' that are inherent to humanity. Now in saying that I realise that in some cultures .. cannibalism for example was an acceptable practice .. and it is hard to factor these conflicting notions into any universal 'right and wrong'.

It doesnt refer to its level of acceptability .. infact universal law supercedes or more accturately precedes in its concept .. legal and social systems ..

It is intertwined with this concept of natural law and natural justice .. it is a concept reified in the establishment of the Nuerenburg trials.

Retrospective judgement is without precedent, in contemporary times prior to Nuerenburg. The offences during WW2 were so heinous and the \ demand of justice clear ..

Offences could not be levied against the accused under German national laws .. as these laws upheld their actions by and large as lawful.

What Nuerenburg did was to introduce new law .. based on the notion of a Universal Law - a law of nature .. or natural justice .. and this was used to enable the creation of new laws and allow the allied forces to try accused members of the Nazi regime and others under these laws - retrospectively.

If eating m&m's was something I enjoyed .. and did it openly .. then one day the government instituted legislation making the consumption of m&m's unlawful .. I could not be held accountable for the m&m's I had consumed previous to the law - 'retrospective judgement' .. but if I ate them in the future .. I could have to answer to a charge of unlawfully consuming m&m's .. if I was caught

But here or there .. it doesnt really forward the arguement on evil .. so I will concede this point ..and simply say .. that universal law is a concept acknowledged .. to demonstrate that there are just some things that are universally wrong whether they are broadly accepted as such or not ..

this notion of universal law doesnt hang on a democratic nod .. it just is ..

the fact that a majority accept a particular notion doesnt mean it is automatically the preferred or even the most ethical notion. It just means that more people accept it than don't. Mob obsession with vigilante justice examples demonstrate this ..

The majority is not always the most educated or informed sector of the society .. and sometimes they represent the more ignorant stratas of society.

imho oftimes we hear educated opinion being decried and lambasted in emotive, irrational and uniformed, 'sheep mentality', closed minded manner ..


Ok back to 'evil' ..

But I can see a person thinking, "Well, only one of us is going to live through this, and will have to eat the other to survive. My life is worth more to me than the other person's life means to me

a good example of ..

but yeah you're right thats the claim of justification sought .. these cases were prolific in the days of naval travel .. long long ago .. hence being 'maritime cases'.

Infact out of interest it was actually was an unwritten nautical code that if a shipwreck occurred that .. to enable the survival of the majority .. cannibalism could occur .. but the victim had to be determined 'lawfully' .. by the drawing of straws. whoever drew the short straw .. well ...

but sometimes this accepted protocol was not always followed .. hence the problem for some.

and what was really tragic .. so many cases of having drank the blood of a chosen victim .. and er go usually procuring his/her death .. [usually his ] .. would result in a rescue within 48 hours!! but not always

hobsons choice

anway .. i digress .. again sorry

so you are the same Highdrake at the Hangar then?
<is confused

[pitchwife]

I've been following this discussion (although I havn't always had time to pitch in), and some very interesting points are being raised.

What Nuerenburg did was to introduce new law .. based on the notion of a Universal Law - a law of nature .. or natural justice ..

I think I understand what Sky is saying, though it is rather hard for me to relate with this universal notion of morality.

I'm more with Birinair and with F&F on this one:

Once you accept that your moral code comes from a faith or alternatively a personal aesthetic, it is possible to understand why evil people exist.

when most people share the same faith then the result is a moral code that is "accepted by the majority".

But it would be very interesting to hear the reasoning used to support this view by the Nueremburg trials, Sky do you have any pointers?

What Sky is saying has a major significance when we come to judge whether a person's actions are evil. It means that evil is objective rather than subjective. A person should be judged according to his/her actions, disregarding how these actions are valued in the context of the society this person belongs to.

Sorry, but I find this hard to accept. People's actions are greately motivated by how they will be viewed by their society.

Also claiming a univeral notion of law is walking a tightrope, cause the next question then is "Who created this universal law?"

-pitch

[Birinair]

Skywier's statement's are based on a belief in natural law. There is an ongoing argument in modern Jursiprudential thought between the philosphy of natural law, and that of the positivists. It is interesting to note that the natural lawyers ideas all spring from an early Christian religious philosophy with a belief in a "god given law". The positivists state that all law is a human construct without morality but simply based on a mechanism for allowing large groups of people to live together.

I am attracted to the positivist argument, however I included in my piece the concept of a faith aswell as an aesthetic, to reflect both philosophical schools of thought. Even if Skywier does not have religious faith he has a faith of sorts because he believes that there is an external morality imposing natural law. I do not have that faith and evil for me is behaviour that I consider falls outside of my personal aesthetic.

Consider this. At the turn of the 19th Century there were those that argued that communism was evil. They did not have the experience of a totalitarian version of communism, they simply thought the idea of total equality was in itself wrong. Today with examples such as Stalin to show us how the idea of creating an egalitarian society can be perverted it is easy to consider that communism was evil inherently, and agree with those early detractors. But would you have considered that someone who proposed a totally democratic society based on the sharing of economic wealth, so that each would recieve according to need and give according to ability, was evil? They considered evil because it hampered there ability to become or remain at the top of a heirarchy, would you have the same objections.

Further cannibalism, and the maritime case poses to easy a dilemma. How about this one: there are two of you in a boat with enough foods for one to survive, if you share you will both die. You are strong enough to impose your will without killing your fellow, and can ensure your survival by starving him. Where does natural law provide you with an answer to what is right and wrong in those circumstances.

Evil is what you believe is evil.

[caamora]

Birinair said:

Evil is what you believe is evil.

If that were true, and evil is subjective, then what Hitler did to the Jews and the Germans was ok. There has to be some universal rules or beliefs for people otherwise evil would be just a point of view.

[Fist and Faith]

Sky,
Yes, I am Highdrake at the Hangar. I'm nobody other than Fist and Faith here, and nobody other than Highdrake there. Got it?:)

Thanks for your posts!! I thoroughly enjoy this kind of discussion!:)

And I believe I did understand you, I guess I just did a bad job of explaining myself. I do not believe that your "natural justice" or "universal law" exist. Although caamora didn't mean to defend my position, she stated it very well:

If that were true, and evil is subjective, then what Hitler did to the Jews and the Germans was ok. There has to be some universal rules or beliefs for people otherwise evil would be just a point of view.

But I guess I can't definitely say I understand you, since you haven't gotten specific yet. I hope you'll clarify your position, though I don't see how it will stand up to the attempt. How can there be any "universal 'right and wrong'" if it is not universally believed, held, practiced?

But even without knowing specifically what you have in mind, I question some things you've said. For example: "I think it is generally regarded that there is a universally accepted standard." Either it is "generally regarded" or it is "universally accepted," but it can't be both. But regardless, "generally regarded" is not sufficient for any kind of objective truth. You also said, "when speaking of universal law .. I am referring to a concept that was acknoweldged that can set at a minumum standard of behaviours." Whose acknowledgement is considered objectively correct?

Unless I do, indeed, misunderstand what you're saying, what I think is truly happening is that the majority of people think something is wrong, and want it to be accepted as an objective truth. I do not believe it is objective. Which is not to say I do not support it. (When we're talking about murder, torture, stealing, and many other things that are illegal in the US.) Right and wrong is subjective. But if we let everybody act as they see fit, we would have anarchy. And anarchy is simply not a workable system when humans want to live in societies. I think it comes down to this:
-A human drive seems to be to live together in societies.
-Societies cannot exist in anarchy.
-We need rules.

I happen to believe that it is wrong to hurt other people or take their freedoms away, so I agree with those societies that attempt to prevent such things as much as possible. But the many societies that operate otherwise, the many that operate very much otherwise, tell me that this morality is not universal.

But would you have considered that someone who proposed a totally democratic society based on the sharing of economic wealth, so that each would recieve according to need and give according to ability, was evil?

Atlas Shrugged?

Further cannibalism, and the maritime case poses to easy a dilemma. How about this one: there are two of you in a boat with enough foods for one to survive, if you share you will both die. You are strong enough to impose your will without killing your fellow, and can ensure your survival by starving him. Where does natural law provide you with an answer to what is right and wrong in those circumstances.

I would share the food, hoping for rescue. But assuming there is reason to believe that no rescue is possible, and we can't talk our way out of this mess, I don't know what I'd do. I would probably starve, because I wouldn't have the heart to force the other away from the food until I was extremely hungry - to the point that I was unable to fight the person off.

[Skyweir]

wow this is getting interesting!

1. Evil cannot be subjective yet it often is deemed so.

first of all I have to address some of your statements

Either it is "generally regarded" or it is "universally accepted," but it can't be both

on what grounds do you claim this? imho if you cant accept the possibilty of these 2 seperate elements within this one sentence .. then you dont seem to understand the meaning and are taking an entirely linear stand point to this issue.


The point is that univesal law .. was a CONCEPT used to base the existence of the Nuerenburg trials and law upon .. A CONCEPT actually employed to validate the creation of international law.

It is not open for debate because it is an established fact. What can be debated is whether or not these laws or these trials were then lawful. There creation was certainly not orthodox .. which is why there existence is all the more compelling in the light of this discussion imho.

Natural law is not proferred to be a christian concept .. even though the early proponents of natural law may well have been christian .. It [natural law] does claim that law exists beyond human codification .. (and I agree it is an ominous arguement) .. but claims to be as part of the Universe .. hence Universal law .. not being the law of the majority .. but as inherent in Nature, and as claimed the Universe.

Being that we are all natural beings, part of a natural world, in which law exists governing a host of elements: gravity, ecosystems etc.. And as belonging to the natural world - certain things offend natural law - genocide being one of them. Clearly identifiable natural wrong.

And it has been a long time since I have studied natural law .. but I am not sure 'evil' is even a term utilised within this philosophyof law ..

Because you are right Birinair .. 'wrong' is objective.

Like you this is a journey of exploration for me too .. and it is very interesting .. so I am grateful for correction where I may err in fact.

Caamora is absolutely correct:

If that were true, and evil is subjective, then what Hitler did to the Jews and the Germans was ok. There has to be some universal rules or beliefs for people otherwise evil would be just a point of view

Exactly!! Under German law Hitler and his regime were justified by existing law - there own law. There needed to be law established which held a nation states to a Universal law. Regardless of there own law, an overarching law that created a universal arguably 'minimum' standard .. or vis a vis an international standard and law.

Having nothing to do with democracy ..

I think what is being missed here .. is not whether international law exists or even why it exists .. but that this is being confused with the notion of what all people believe.

But the many societies that operate otherwise, the many that operate very much otherwise, tell me that this morality is not universal

this is not the notion being espoused .. and I totally agree with your assessment. So clearly a subjective view of 'morality' is not going to produce any reliable standard.

Hence the application of Universal or Natural Law. An objective standard .. that scrutinises the divergent range of moralities and sets clear sign posts of Universal Right and Universal Wrong ..

er go numerous actions instigated under Hitler's facist Nazi regime were 'wrong' .. indisputably wrong.

Surely, there is not a soul who could claim 'Universal Law/International Law' errs in this formulation.

You are strong enough to impose your will without killing your fellow, and can ensure your survival by starving him. Where does natural law provide you with an answer to what is right and wrong in those circumstances.

Each circumstance must be weighed individually. But on the facts as presented, this is an objective 'wrong'. And the basis for this assertion hinges on the fact that the weaker party had his will overborne by the stronger party. No sense of fairness or equitabilty exists in this scenario that demonstrates that both parties mutually decided the one should perish.

As in the maritime cases of shipwreck and drawing of straws to decide who will survive and who will not. Barbaric maybe, but in the very least a sense of equitability pervailed, and the choice of victim was no one persons choice .. or even a majority against an individual.

Natural law would require that the victims is not decided by the mere presence of compulsion or the imposition of anothers will over yours. This is indeed an objective standard .. as determining a 'wrong' needs to be

And to answer your question Birinair I would do as F&F proferred .. share the available resources .. in hope of a rescue .. because no one knows when a rescue will come .. and if death be the result .. then we die knowing we did attempt to survive at the expense of another.

But at the end of the day .. this very question in and of itself can spawn the most intense of debates.

Getting back to F&F's other point .. on anarchy .. yes I agree and is why we must have an objective standard with which to determine what is a 'wrong'.

And this is quite possibly why most belief systems have similar codes idenitfying 'wrong' .. cos its really not that hard to determine a basic standard. Which also forms the basis of our Western legal systems.

Birinair your example of a popular perception of communism being 'evil' seems to bear up the need of an objective standard .. does it not? As you yourself argue that these notions are fluid over time.

[Skyweir]

Pitch -

Also claiming a univeral notion of law is walking a tightrope, cause the next question then is "Who created this universal law?"

Universal Law is elicited from Natural Law .. like all theories they have human proponents .. but in the case of Universal Law .. it is claimed to be elicited from Nature

NOT human nature .. but that which perpetuates the natural world and order. It is a loose construct .. reified in the body of International Law that exists today.

This has absolutely nothing to do with popularly held belief or support for what is 'wrong' ..

perhaps I erred in using the lower case 'u' which may have given rise to this misconception.

[Birinair]

Skywier seems to indicate that natural law arises out of the need for objectivity. My argument is simply this " there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters". There is no logical reason why to kill to survive should be wrong, I happen to think it is, but that comes from my subjective view of the world. There is no syllogism that leads to the conclusion that there is a natural law. The assertion that genocide is wrong does not arise from a logical premise but from a belief system either arising out of a faith or an aesthetic, hence my assertion that evil is what you believe it is. If you can point me to a syllogism that underpins what is a natural wrong in a biological sense as opposed to physics, I would be prepared to consider that I am wrong, but having studied jurisprudential philsophy and the rights based theories of Dworkin, I remain a convinced positivist. But that, I concede is because I have no faith, be that religious faith or an overarching belief in the universe have natural wrongs, but without a logical underpinning what is wrong or evil remains a subjective matter of belief.I for instance believe it is wrong to kill, ever, so I could not condone the death sentences carried following the Nurenberg trials, but that is Just my aesthetic.

By the way the natural law philosophers won the argument after the war in Nurenberg, but one wonders whether that, in a political sense, that was simply a convenient theoretical justification for the discredited "victors justice" that followed the Great War.

[Birinair]

Skywier seems to indicate that natural law arises out of the need for objectivity. My argument is simply this " there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters". There is no logical reason why to kill to survive should be wrong, I happen to think it is, but that comes from my subjective view of the world. There is no syllogism that leads to the conclusion that there is a natural law. The assertion that genocide is wrong does not arise from a logical premise but from a belief system either arising out of a faith or an aesthetic, hence my assertion that evil is what you believe it is. If you can point me to a syllogism that underpins what is a natural wrong in a biological sense as opposed to physics, I would be prepared to consider that I am wrong, but having studied jurisprudential philsophy and the rights based theories of Dworkin, I remain a convinced positivist. But that, I concede is because I have no faith, be that religious faith or an overarching belief in the universe have natural wrongs, but without a logical underpinning what is wrong or evil remains a subjective matter of belief.I for instance believe it is wrong to kill, ever, so I could not condone the death sentences carried following the Nurenberg trials, but that is Just my aesthetic.

By the way the natural law philosophers won the argument after the war in Nurenberg, but one wonders whether that, in a political sense, that was simply a convenient theoretical justification for the discredited "victors justice" that followed the Great War.

[Fist and Faith]

Sky,
It would seem that I DID misunderstand you. No time to write much at the moment, but I want to see if I now understand you.

I had thought you meant that there are things that everyone naturally feels to be right and wrong, despite the way many actually behave. But I guess that's not what you meant.

OK, "natural law" looks at the world of nature. If something never occurs in nature, such as maybe genocide, it is considered against natural law. Is that it?

Never having thought about this concept in terms of making a legal system, I wonder if I agree with it. What of the fact that, in many species, leaders are decided by brute force? And just to try to understand, if all animals do things one way, but primates do it different, does our vision of natural law side with the primates?

I hope I got it right this time!:) This is an interesting concept, and I'll enjoy contemplating and discussing it.

[Skyweir]

well the basis of our international law and its covenants are based upon this premise 'Natural/Universal Law' ..

you need look no further than these covenants and charters to elicit what Universal Law determines 'wrong' .. cruelty .. torture .. genocide .. and a host of other things .. under the umbrella of 'crimes against humanity'

Murder though .. in some long forgotten races .. may have been an acceptable method of securing status .. does not accord with Natural Law .. Fundamentally .. because murder and brutality does not perpetuate humankind .. If this action falls outside of principles that promote life then it is against Universal Law.

I must correct a previous assertion of mine .. I stated in an earlier post that 'Evil' is subjective .. and I am completely wrong .. the term 'Evil' is completely subjective .. the condition that the term is applied to is determined by the individual observer ..

However, an offence or a 'wrong' even .. is determined by its breach of law or by whether or not it complies with the law. So it is weighed against the 'Law' .. an objective standard .. as opposed to being weighed against the belief of a 3rd party .. or parties.

It is the objective element that can be relied upon. Subjectivity in law has very limited scope imho. It serves to deliberate individual circumstances which are requisite in the pursuit of justice .. for sure .. ie: a defence lawyer will draw on subjective elements to support his clients position .. appeal for leniency in assigned punishmemts etc..

But speaking of 'wrong' .. if subjectivity is relied upon .. then to Milosovich if he believed genocide morally justifiable .. or an even better example of this is: Osama bin Laden .. if he truly believed that in orchestrating the deaths of thousands on 9/11 [subjective test] that his actions are morally justifiable .. righteous even .. [subjectivity imho=faith based judgement] .. then we only have a limited standard upon which to determine the scope or even existence of a person's guilt.

Do we then accept that the subjective test is preferrable to an objective one?? Do we reconcile the conflicting subjectivities [which there will always be] by turning a blind eye to 'wrong' .. even when viewed as 'right'?

I dont think so. I think this is more than an arguement of positivism vs natural/Universal law theory .. [upon which international law is formulated]

I think you are right Birinair .. that the motives behind the adoption of Universal/Natural Law in the justification of the Nuerenbeug trials may well be questionable .. but do you propose a preferable option?

War criminals were tried for 'crimes against humanity' .. Justice didn't just need to be served, but demanded to be served.

The application of the newly prescribed international law provided the justification and the means for the addressing of such overtly grievous wrongs.

But that is quite another discussion .. here we are to address what is 'evil' and I think I concur with Birinair in that 'evil' is subjective .. And to me anything subjective can not be relied upon .. it requires overseeing by the broader objective position.

Is Foul 'evil'? then that depends upon your subjective view point .. Do you think he is 'evil' .. his actions are 'evil' .. then all we have established is that what YOU believe.

Weighed against a higher standard of objectivity .. is he still 'evil' .. well Universal Law doesnt address that question .. but his actions do assert this .. He pursues the destruction of 'humanity' or its equivalent .. in the Land. In this he is actions are 'evil'. If 'evil' is the term of preference.

Are his actions 'wrong' .. ? .. Yep indeed .. is he wrong for committing these actions against the humanity equivalent in the Land? Yes I guess he is ..

[Skyweir]

oh and in the noted tradition of disclaimers if this isnt precisely a definition of Universal Law .. then it should be .. and I like it!

The doctrine of Universal/Natural Law according to Skyweir.