Kevin's Watch

syl wrote:
But if you had no concept that stealing went against a greater good, then what would be bad about it? If your actions produced no ill effects (say Bannor never noticed), gave you nothing which you didn't want, wouldn't the act have been a good one?

You could say it has ill effects because if the theft (or whatever crime) was permitted by society at large, and no effort made to deter future crime, then your own safety or property or freedom is in jeopardy because someone else could, with impunity, commit the same crime against you as you committed against someone else.

dammit .. someone said .. we all know .. or have an inner knowledge of right and wrong .. this 'knowledge' .. that 'all' share .. where does it come from????

Is it intrinsic knowledge? .. 'pure intelligence'? .. part of the very essence of humanity???

In a way, Victor Hugo deals with this in Les Miserables, in as far as the issue of conscience goes. A cool quote in it comes in a discussion two characters are having:

"Man should be ruled by knowledge."
"And by conscience."
"They are the same thing. Conscience is the amount of inner knowledge that we possess."

Which is a different take on the source of morality and the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Hugo makes it either an internal knowledge, or an internal knowledge bestowed by God. The more utilitarian way of looking at it--does it promote a stable, safe society? yes, then it's good--implies external pressures to behave "correctly."

Anyway, I don't think personal concepts of morality come from any one source, but it's interesting to think about.

Last: wasn't The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas the story about the happy perfect society whose happiness depended on the utter and complete misery of one person? Kind of taking the utilitarian greatest good principle to task....

really excellent post W.B. good to have you here .. I am eager to hear more from you! You seem to know a bit about these issues.

The source of the existence of an 'inner knowledge' or conscience .. isnt relevant .. to the question of whether or not that 'intelligence' exists .. and is intrinsic to humanity. Not that its entirely irrelevant either .. it makes an interesting exploration.

Universal law theorists would work with the premise that there is some basic fundamental intelligence intrinsic to all humanity .. that forms the most basic standard and guide for human interaction.

W.B. wrote:You could say it has ill effects because if the theft (or whatever crime) was permitted by society at large, and no effort made to deter future crime, then your own safety or property or freedom is in jeopardy because someone else could, with impunity, commit the same crime against you as you committed against someone else.

that is a brilliant response to that question!!!!

nothing to add there!!

I am not overly comfortable with the utilitarian view .. 'the ends justifies the means' rationale .. even the supposed 'greater good' principle. I have to think on this more .. but

Skyweir wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:I do not agree that the ends justifies the means.

Falls over!! oh I thought you were a believer in the greater good theory .. whats in the best interest of the majority and all that

Not at the expense of the individual. Nobody, not even everybody, has the right to expect me to sacrifice myself for them, and I don't have the right to expect anyone to sacrifice his or herself for me.

Nor is there a need. Sacrificing the individual for the "greater good" is a false strategy. Everybody else sees what's happening. We all know that we can be sacrificed at any time. Don't expect me to support them when trouble comes along.

On the other hand, what if they did NOT put Japanese-Americans into prison camps? What if everyone's rights were respected? What if they said, "We don't know what danger exists. Even if some members of this particular population are enemies, we don't know which, and we won't punish the innocent. But we aren't helpless. We have to be vigilant, and work together. We're one people, we became great because of our diversity, and now we need to protect it." THEN, when trouble comes along, I'm thinking, "This is a system, a way of life, worth fighting for."

Skyweir wrote:Universal Law claims there is a code that certain principles are elicited from .. there may be some divergencies .. but there are fundamental principles that we all subconsciously share .. that give us that 'knowledge' and more accurately 'intelligence' that guide our actions.

Not all abide by this intrinsic 'intelligence' .. but it exists .. as does 'choice' and 'independent will' .. Universal Law is not dependant nor is it discredited according to individual departures from this 'intelligence'.

Isn't this sort of incompatible with saying, "and F&F you were correct in your belief that Universal Law is not based on feelings commonly shared regarding morality."?

Regardless, I still don't know of any reason to believe your assertion. Should everyone have exactly the same rights? I think so. But someone else will say that someone who has the ability, who finds a way, to rule others, has the right to rule. And good luck convincing him otherwise. The ability to gain and hold power - the intelligence required to accomplish this - can be viewed the same way as any other mental ability; like one for physics, music, or math.
"Why should I be denied the use of my ability?"

"Because it gives you power over me. It's not fair, not right."

"It's neither fair, nor unfair. It's just a fact of existence. Like gravity. Is it unfair if a branch falls from a tree and hits you on the head? Different people have different abilities. This is mine. If you don't like it, remove me from power. The one most fit to rule will eventually come out on top. Should we have a weak, stupid ruler instead? Despite any obstacles, the one who is most capable of ruling will."

There is no reason to believe that there is some intrinsic, subconsciously shared principles that this person is choosing to ignore. What evidence do you have that those who claim to feel other basic principles do not?

Skyweir wrote:it would not accord with my personal integrity .. no matter if Bannor is unaware .. and no harm was caused .. Lets say it was something more substantive than an emoticon .. lets say it was some physical property .. i took a liberty in taking possession of that which was not mine to take. If I did not gain his consent regarding my action .. I have committed a trespass against him. Perhaps one of limited degree .. but I am aware of my trespass .. I am conscious of a 'wrong' .. this consciousness and 'intelligence' affirms this to me.

Bravo! My own morality agrees completely!

This universal law sounds interesting. I actually don't think I've encountered that exact theory before.... From what I understand from above posts, it seems such theorists would look at different cultures around the world and see what each has in common in terms of their moral and ethical structures and how the structures manifest themselves in their societies, indicating what fundamentals are common to humanity (such as fearing what is different in times of stress and uncertainity, Re: the Japanese in WWII or Muslims now). They'd have to be broad similar categories because their manifestations could vary drastically.

I'm not sure where I fall on universal law, but as a species we definitely have some baseline intelligence, and a lot of that intelligence is directed toward social goals, since we're a very social species. Much of what we consider good or bad is defined in reference to whether or not it hurts or helps our social group--family, community, country, etc. There seem to be some common moral concepts, though there are many differing societies; different cultures may just have different way of expressing similar "universal laws." I'd say most cultures don't like thieves, and probably very few people truly don't know what's wrong and right, they just choose to ignore or rationalize it. Whether the knowledge comes from the social imperative to cooperate and respect property or from a more generalized morality, it's still a similarity humanity shares.

So I guess I am saying a lot of our intelligence is applied socially and there are some common precepts that address humanity's common problems. Still, I agree that the utilitarian viewpoint isn't really satisfying. At some point it seems you have to take a moral imperative and say that, for you, this is right or wrong, whatever other considerations there are. Instead of a social viewpoint, you have a personal, individual one. BTW, Thomas Covenat seems pretty good at sticking to his own personal point of view.... Much too big a topic for this late at night.... Funny, though, how this thread evolved from the original question!

LOL F&F!! you seem to be having a problem with that

F&F cited me and in bold wrote: Skyweir wrote:
Universal Law claims there is a code that certain principles are elicited from .. there may be some divergencies .. but there are fundamental principles that we all subconsciously share .. that give us that 'knowledge' and more accurately 'intelligence' that guide our actions. //Skyweir.

Not all abide by this intrinsic 'intelligence' .. but it exists .. as does 'choice' and 'independent will' .. Universal Law is not dependant nor is it discredited according to individual departures from this 'intelligence'

F&F: Isn't this sort of incompatible with saying, "and F&F you were correct in your belief that Universal Law is not based on feelings commonly shared regarding morality."? .

Nope because it has nothing to do with shared 'feelings' of morality .. or 'feelings' at all .. Natural law theorists claim that there exists universal benchmarks intrinsic to humanity. That they are elicited .. not drawn from popularly held belief .. or even on an evidenced mean of general behavioural morality.

Universal law is not based on 'feelings' commonly shared regarding .. it claims not to be a subjective determination .. The asserted Universal standard is purportedly gleaned from 'intelligence' which is intrinsic to humanity .. from the very essence of 'humanity' not 'humaness' .. as it is connected to the Universe mayhap .. that which exists but not necessarily what humans prescribe to or believe .. because .. how often do people believe or employ that which is contrary the dictates of their conscience?

Universal Law is an ellusive concept .. but it does have very clear parameters.

I think the confusion arises when we combine the human expression and pursuit of self-determination with this concept of law .. ofcourse people cant do whatever they like .. and still there are very real lines in the sand .. that should not be crossed .. and know they should not be crossed .. these lines are Universal Law 'baselines' .. <to borrow a phrase>

Law exists .. in a variety of forms .. laws of physics, gravity etc exist regardless of fairness or unfairness .. and the reality is - we must function within them.

'Criminal laws exist regardless of the imposition it may be to coerce you into not getting behind the wheel after consuming your body weight in alchohol .. and regardless of your 'belief' that you should not be denied or restricted in your ability to drive, as you drive perfectly well intoxicated, or so you believe.

Universal Law which forms the international basis of 'Crimes against humanity' exist .. to ensure that despite an individuals subjective 'belief' of what they should be allowed to do .. or how they should rule if they are in a position of power .. they can not and will not find justification for actions which constitute 'Crimes Against Humanity' ..

It is irrelevant what a person believes he should be able to do .. and just because he/she believes they have the ability to do something doesnt make it a true .. and if what they want to do is not lawful .. it cannot be a justifiable action.

F&F wrote:What evidence do you have that those who claim to feel other basic principles do not?

what other basic prinicples are you refering to?basic needs like hunger? No problem .. these do not discredit the presence of 'a conscience' or 'some baseline intelligence' <kudos W.B.> .. and this is not part of my arguement so I am loathe to pursue to counter my own position.

W.B wrote:I'd say most cultures don't like thieves, and probably very few people truly don't know what's wrong and right, they just choose to ignore or rationalize it.

I understand what you are saying .. but universal law is not elicited in this manner exactly .. if so .. then the international community would not have had a case against the Nazi regime following WW2 .. in respect to Crimes Against Humanity because .. well .. as a nation anti-semetic 'feeling' was arguably wide spread in pre-war Germany and Hitler monopolised on that very fact .. Anti-semetic legislation was passed and even following acute warnings like CandleNacht .. where the writing was most definitely on the wall .. there was no public outcry in opposition to this alleged 'National Socialist' stance .. There was in Germany and further afield .. a 'Jewish problem' and to rid the state of jews was a reasonable 'means' of dealing with their unwanted presence. And in this case the 'means justifies the end' notion was employed .. hence .. how can anyone take task with that? Under German law the Nazi agenda was lawful .. so there was no 'wrong' .. no 'evil' ..

The International War Crimes Tribunal was held, established and founded on and by an unprecedented standard .. that held 'enemy' captives to retrospective judgement and accountability .. Under German law they had done NO wrong .. as you say .. and could not be prosecuted .. So a new law was created .. based on Universal Law that supported the establishment of the new offence of .. 'Crimes Against Humanity' .. which established a rudimentary .. (and to borrow your words yet again W.B.) .. baseline.

We speak often of the need for humanity .. the need to be concerned for the welfare of humankind .. the welfare of human beings .. essential to such an ethos are the rudimentary principles proclaimed in the the Universal Charter of Human rights ..

but white gold is a paradox
for power cannot exist without law
but white gold has no law

(Sorry, just could not resist. )

hamako wrote:Taking up Pitchwife's idea in another thread - SRD points us towards NIck Succorso, LF, KAsreyn, HOlt Fasner & Master Eremis and asks what do they have in common that could show us what being evil is about.

They all use other people's misery as a source of strength.

Specifically:

Master Eremis has gained his seat and strength by a comination of humiliation, and seeks to gain further strength by manipulating (but not visibly partaking in) warfare. He uses imagery to destroy towns and villages not to conquer them, but to set all other kingdoms at each others throat and be king of the hill of a pile of corpses.

Assuming what the lords told Covenant is accurate (the story exists as a myth to them) Lord Foul's purpose in The Land is to transform it into foulness. Initally, perhaps, he was happy to keep Creation imperfect but when he became trapped on the wrong side of The Arch of Time, he began a campaign to destroy The Land not through power itself--you know he's powerful enough to rend the land--but through corrupting the land so that the people destroy it at their own hands. First Kevin's Ritual of Desecration--an act to try and limit Foul's power--then through the Lords through Elena (Covenant could smell her corruption as she invoked the Power of Command), then the na-Mohrim's creation of The Sunbane (a direct result of Covenant's destruction of the Staff of Law). All doing Foul's work for him. Toss in the Giant's suicide, the Bloodguard's breaking (their name for Lord Foul is "Corruption"). It is stated planly somewhere at the end of The Power That Preserves and again in White Gold Weilder, but Foul's existence and motivation is to corrupt the land either because he hates The Creator, or he hates being trapped on that side of the Arch of Time, or maybe simply for power.

Nick Succorso gets what he wants by hurting and hating. Nick is probably SRDs version of "Sarcastro" from The Tick. Nick drips venom with every word, his relationships are based on humilation, and he gets what he wants by torture, blackmail, or out and out deception. He risks his crew, his ship, and--for all we know--all of humanity for the opportunity to get back at Morn for deceiving him.

Holt Fasner has built an empire by cashing in on humanity's fears and stoking the flame of that fear. The Amnion is a real enemy, but Holt plays humanities fears to his own advantage alone. Would Holt sacrifice all of Earth to get that immortality? Without thinking.

They all use other people's misery as a source of strength.

Really good point!

I'd add (I think I said this elsewhere when I first found the site, so maybe this is repetitious) to that definition using/manipulating/controling someone else's will--rape, the using of Elena by Covenant in The Illearth War, the Ravers, possession in general in the Second Chronicles. Lord Foul very good at this; he uses characters' intentions for his own means--often uses their own best intentions against them--which is just a more subtle version of other manipulations. He's a sophisticated, talented, devious manipulator/user. And he has carious eyes...damn his hide.

bump....'cause this is too good to be back on pg 6

Egads!

mmm .... coool!!!!!!!! this was a goodie!!! LOL

Wise words are said rarely, hence my sparse thread posting, (gags on own cod humility)

Good to see this bumped back into visibility

I think that some of the most curdling, vicious acts of evil are those that exploit people's actions, where said actions aren't knowingly intended to be evil. Then the impact is so much more amplified.

lost my impact by not logging in, doh. It was I, the guest

Yeah, making someone regret a good deed is certainly a nasty thing!!

After reading thru this thread up to the last post, let me start out by saying Holy $#|^!

Next, I want to keep this going by pointing out that we still haven't answered the original question posed in this thread: What is evil? I guess the TC-related questions are: Is LF evil? The Creator?

Nevermind whether evil is subjective or objective... can we agree on a definition? Any definition?

I pose this as a first draft definition for evil[2nd if you count my Post-It pad ]

Evil is defined as an intentional action or expression that serves to fulfill an individual's (or a group's) own needs or desires at the expense of or in opposition to those of another (or other group), especially when accompanied by or amplified by a lack of empathy (cold) or a sense of satisfaction (perverse) at the misfortune that befalls the other(s).

Note that this definition implies a frame of reference: it sort of assumes that the judges of the evil are in the "other" group, unless the perpetrator of the evil is aware of his/her badness. And of course my circular reasoning only serves to strengthen my argument (and my belief) that evil is subjective...

So, is LF evil? For an entity to be entirely evil or not evil I would argue that it would have to be an absolute force [i.e., not humanoid, as humans are generally assigned the all-important power of free will], and being a force implies that it lacks free will. IMO, another important facet of evil is choice, in that your actions dictate whether you are thought of as evil or not. From the PoV of the Lords and the other people of the Land, LF was certainly a perpetrator of many great evils, and thus judged to be synonymous with evil in their minds. So whether or not LF is evil depends on whom you identify with, thus specifying your point of reference within the definition of evil.

The Creator seemed to support this view. Of course, by overriding TC's assumed unwillingess to be the savior of the Land, the Creator himself committed an evil act by forcing TC into the Land, hopefully so that TC would choose to act on his behalf within the AoT. The Creator himself admitted that this was an evil committed to preserve the beauty of his creation---a good act from the PoV of the inhabitants of the Land, but not without great cost to TC, or to the Land itself, as I think we will find out in 3rd Chrons...

Even though we are given the impression that LF was being nasty even before he was imprisoned with the AoT, what if his motivations were purer than we think? What if LF is himself a creator that cannot now tend to his own creations because he is imprisoned within The Creator's AoT? [I don't for a second believe this is what SRD intended, but we do like our nutcracking scenarios on the Watch, don't we!]. Does LF consider himself to be evil? Does anyone ever consider themself to be evil? [and why does this question make me want to sing "You're a Mean One, Mister Grinch!"...? ]

I guess my [wildly meandering and not clearly communicated] basic point is that even though the concept of 'evil' is subjective, the definition could be written to take this into account, as long as you provide a point of reference.... sort of like defining a variable.

DW
[Weird, warped, and wearing a large headache from all this philosophy!]

Wow! Excellent post Dhukkah! Thanks for bringing this into the light again!

I'm ruminating on something now....I'll have to think about it and try to make it make sense.....

Wow! Well done, DW!!!

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Next, I want to keep this going by pointing out that we still haven't answered the original question posed in this thread: What is evil?

Not for lack of trying!!

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Nevermind whether evil is subjective or objective... can we agree on a definition? Any definition?

I wouldn't count on it.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Evil is defined as an intentional action or expression that serves to fulfill an individual's (or a group's) own needs or desires at the expense of or in opposition to those of another (or other group), especially when accompanied by or amplified by a lack of empathy (cold) or a sense of satisfaction (perverse) at the misfortune that befalls the other(s).

Where does capitalism fit into this definition?

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Note that this definition implies a frame of reference: it sort of assumes that the judges of the evil are in the "other" group, unless the perpetrator of the evil is aware of his/her badness. And of course my circular reasoning only serves to strengthen my argument (and my belief) that evil is subjective...

Now that I agree with!!

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:So, is LF evil? For an entity to be entirely evil or not evil I would argue that it would have to be an absolute force [i.e., not humanoid, as humans are generally assigned the all-important power of free will], and being a force implies that it lacks free will. IMO, another important facet of evil is choice, in that your actions dictate whether you are thought of as evil or not. From the PoV of the Lords and the other people of the Land, LF was certainly a perpetrator of many great evils, and thus judged to be synonymous with evil in their minds. So whether or not LF is evil depends on whom you identify with, thus specifying your point of reference within the definition of evil.

I don't know if I'm contradicting an earlier stance or not. The topic is so difficult to nail down. To my thinking (at least I think), there is no evil without intent. To use my favorite example, the wasp that paralyzes the spider and lays her eggs into the spider's body, so that, when they hatch, the baby wasps will have a living body to eat their way out of, is not evil. It just does what its nature demands. Foul may be as helpless to his nature. Can he behave other than he does? If not, then I'd say he's a force of nature. (As opposed to a human who has no choice but to behave that way, which is, what, pschotic or something like that?)

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:The Creator seemed to support this view. Of course, by overriding TC's assumed unwillingess to be the savior of the Land, the Creator himself committed an evil act by forcing TC into the Land, hopefully so that TC would choose to act on his behalf within the AoT. The Creator himself admitted that this was an evil committed to preserve the beauty of his creation---a good act from the PoV of the inhabitants of the Land, but not without great cost to TC, or to the Land itself, as I think we will find out in 3rd Chrons...

Personally, I agree with Mhoram that the end does NOT justify the means. The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the one if the one does not decide they do. Mhoram did not force the same choice on Covenant, but let him refuse. The Creator's act was certainly wrong, and, considering the intensity, duration, nature, and danger to Covenant, it was even evil. But I don't necessarily think that everyone who commits an evil act is, themself, evil.

The fact that Covenant got such incredible benefit from all this is an interesting thing. It does not let the Creator off the hook, since He never mentions that this was part of His plan. Covenant just got lucky, and the whole experience ended up being worth it for him. At least imo, and I think his too. But if it HAD been part of the Creator's plan, it might be another matter. It's difficult for me to say just where the line is when someone should be forced out of their own self-destructive choices.

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Even though we are given the impression that LF was being nasty even before he was imprisoned with the AoT, what if his motivations were purer than we think? What if LF is himself a creator that cannot now tend to his own creations because he is imprisoned within The Creator's AoT? [I don't for a second believe this is what SRD intended, but we do like our nutcracking scenarios on the Watch, don't we!].

My personal definition of evil is simple: Holding one's own desires and beliefs as inherently greater than those of other people.

That means that anyone who believes that their religion is the one true religion is evil.

That means anyone who is willing to sacrifice the well-being of others for personal gain is evil.

That means that anyone who believes that he/she is superior to everyone else is evil.

Of course, this begs the question of what causes evil.

Evil is a very human concept (duh).

Can Foul be otherwise? Is he the cosmological counterpart of the Creator, as in creation/destruction? It is very difficult to define what is the exact relationship of the Creator and Foul. Are they of equal stance, would the unleashed Foul be an equal counterpart of the Creator? Or is their ratio more akin to that of Eru and Melkor? Foul is certainly very powerful if compared to the Lords and other inhabitants of the Land, but he does not appear to be "überpowerful" in a cosmic scape. I got the notion even the Worm was a more powerful, if unconcious, being than Foul. Or is this merely because he is imprisoned inside the Arch and somehow is bound to his physical being that limits his strength? Much like the Valar and other Incarnates in Tolkien's vision, whose fear (spirits) were to an extent bound to their hroar (bodies), and each every act of creation or destruction tapped their creative powers?

Melkor was evil, that is IMHO beyond question, as he deliberately wandered off the path of Ilúvatar. Is this the same with Foul? I am not sure.

many intriguing questions.