Kevin's Watch

SRD is firm in his belief regarding the nature of evil. It shows in all of his fiction, but, of course, none so blatant as Covenant. Evil is Despite. He commented on this recently in his gradual interview. Despite is a synonym of contempt - and it is contempt for your fellow man, for your environment, etc.

Here's a question. There are quite a few people that hold others in contempt, that have contempt for the environment (uh, George Bush comes to mind, but seriously, I'm not using him for this argument). Some people act on their contempt, or Despite, others do not. Are you still evil if you do not act on your Despite? Or are you evil only if you act on it?

I'm going to pick on one historical figure, Hitler, because his obviousness as an evil perosn is without reproach, unless you're a Nazi sympathizer, in which case you really have no place being a fan of SRD.

There is absolutely no question that Hitler contained every aspect of contempt imaginable. But there were other qualities that he possessed, other qualities that many "evil" people or dictators possess (look at Stalin, for example): rapacity, paranoia, and spite.

Is this a complete and total picture of evil? Or is there more? Discuss.

Surely evil is an entirely personal thing. After all for some people, just as an example, being homosexual or not Christian is being evil (at its worst). Euthanasia could be considered an evil act. For some abortion is murder. Some see genocide as evil, but eugenics as good sense. We all have our own personal lines to draw. Many will say that there are clear examples of evil-such as the holocaust, but the mere fact that there are those that agree with the purpose behind such acts, renders the simplification useless.

All questions of morality are deeply personal, and determining the nature of evil is, therefore, essentially a personal decision. There is no doubt in my mind that Hitler and those closest to him viewed themselves as anything but evil. Because people agree with the purpose behind the Holocaust hardly renders that simplistic. To draw another parallel, while we may see the actions of John Wayne Gacy as evil, did he? Unquestionably not. A cursory study of Gacy reveals that, and an in-depth study of his motives and actions is really quite fascinating.

The question that I’m posing here is exactly what the previous poster seems to be speaking against: how do people interpret evil in a general sense? If you interpret homosexuality as evil, then of course that’s your opinion, although it would be hard pressed to argue without turning to passages in the Christian Bible which – according to many Christians themselves – are difficult to translate. Of course anyone can respond to this question as they choose, as it’s entirely open ended, but “The Nature of Evil” isn’t examining genocide, euthanasia, eugenics, pedophilia, mass murder, homosexuality (which really doesn’t belong in this list, but I’m including it because it was included above), religion, or specific instances such as the Holocaust, for that matter. It’s “The Nature of Evil”.

Does evil have a common denominator? SRD seems to think it does. Evil = Despite. That doesn’t make it so, of course, as SRD is hardly a God. He is a marvelously talented writer, of course! I’m highly intrigued by his response, and am curious as to what other people think evil is.

Personaly I don't beleive in evil. I am of the opinion that evil is entirely subjective and that no act, therefore, can truely be evil.

I think this is another example of SRD not using the word as it is commonly defined. I think instead of contempt, he meant Hate. There is hate in every truly evil act you can think of. Despair is Fear gone rampant, most people naturally hate what they fear or hate themselves for being fearful.

What is the opposite of fear? (thanks Fist and Brinn for suggesting Gates of Fire) Love or compassion, I think, is the opposite.
Good is forgiveness and love.
Evil is fear and hate.

Despite is synonymous with contempt. And in his gradual interview, he uses both words in defining evil.

ahhh semantics...

This thread belongs in General Discussion or the Think Tank, not the Thomas Covenant forum.

Agreed unless you wish to talk about the evil that Lord Foul and his Ravers represent or the possible evil of Covenant and his refusal to act on others behalf during the first Chrons (namely LFB). Focus, focus.

Evil is subjective to interpretation but it does exist and in some ways it is personified.

we already had this discussion didn't we? In the gap forum under 'Who are the good guys?'

Or a discussion along very similar lines...

burgs66 wrote:I'm going to pick on one historical figure, Hitler, because his obviousness as an evil perosn is without reproach, unless you're a Nazi sympathizer, in which case you really have no place being a fan of SRD.

There is absolutely no question that Hitler contained every aspect of contempt imaginable. But there were other qualities that he possessed, other qualities that many "evil" people or dictators possess (look at Stalin, for example): rapacity, paranoia, and spite.

Is this a complete and total picture of evil? Or is there more? Discuss.

I don't want to touch the central issue here with a 39-1/2-foot pole, except to recommend that you all look up any book on ethical philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler. His approach to ethics is based on Aristotle's, and has nothing to do with any specific religion (though most religions are in agreement with his general conclusions) — and he does NOT have the time of day for those who think ethics is simply a subjective field that you get to make up as you go along.

What I do want to say is that Stalin was a far more evil person than Hitler. Hitler was an appalling monster, but right till the end he retained some vestige of human personality. He was a vegetarian, an environmentalist of sorts, an animal-lover, and he remained fanatically loyal to most of his personal friends (the chief exception being Ernst Röhm, who, as Hitler believed, was plotting to use the SA to take over the state). He also had just enough conscience left to make him unwilling to visit his own concentration camps, or even the German cities that were bombed to rubble because of the war he started.

Stalin, on the other hand, gloried in sadism. He drove his wife to suicide, he personally watched his enemies being tortured in Lubyanka prison, and he betrayed and murdered virtually all his close associates — beginning with Trotsky, and ending with the KGB general who was the only person permitted to shave him. In the aggregate, he killed more people than Hitler did, and like Hitler, he murdered huge numbers of victims on the basis of race. His regime was violently anti-Semitic, and he attempted to wipe out various minorities in the Soviet Union, most notably the Crimean Tatars. If you have a strong enough stomach, you can read the grisly details in Koba the Dread by Martin Amis.

Mind you, Stalin won the Second World War and ruled Russia for 25 years. Hitler's 'Thousand-Year Reich' only lasted 12 years. If Hitler had won, I'm sure he would have gone on to commit every one of Stalin's atrocities. But based on the evil he actually accomplished, he falls short of Stalin's mark by several million murders and a fair chunk of residual humanity.

As long as this topic sticks to TC and LF and other Covenant issues, I don't see why it has to be moved. Everytime people talk about Hitler and Stalin I always mention Pol Pot--but no one ever wants to talk about him. I wonder why that is? He killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined...Foul dude indeed!

danlo wrote:As long as this topic sticks to TC and LF and other Covenant issues, I don't see why it has to be moved. Everytime people talk about Hitler and Stalin I always mention Pol Pot--but no one ever wants to talk about him. I wonder why that is? He killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined...Foul dude indeed!

Only as a percentage of the available population — Cambodia being a much smaller country than Germany or Russia. In terms of the total numbers of bodies, both Hitler and Stalin had him beat. And we may yet discover, when the Chinese open up their state records to the historians, that Mao had them all beat.

But yeah, good ol' Pol was one of the frontrunners. If you want to yak about him in a thread elsewhere, I'll be disconcertingly happy to participate.

To me, Watchmates, Evil is defined as the ability to consider or act on the consderation of a deed which knowingly will bring desecration or misery to life or beauty.

Having said this there is a difference between evil acts and evil men, which can be mutually exclusive. I will not pass judgemnt here or speak on the weakness of others but for argument's sake, lets examine my pal Bushy.

Is he an evil man? By no means do even I believe THAT. However, the fact that he cherry-picked data to justify a war that has so far cost 900 american lives and many many times more Iraqi civilians is IMHO an evil act. Especially since he's done it in the name of God.

Evil is subjective, but does surpass its capacity to remain in subjectivity. Scale and scope, right? This is not to say that one evil cancels out another.

Gunslinger, it took you 5 days to post this - you're slipping.

dlbpharmd wrote:Gunslinger, it took you 5 days to post this - you're slipping.

Evil in the form of procrastination? eep!

However, the fact that he cherry-picked data to justify a war that has so far cost 900 american lives and many many times more Iraqi civilians is IMHO an evil act.

*sigh* You're calling the War on Iraq evil because as far as you know, there is no good reason to justify it? Do you assume that you know EVERYthing about the situation? I'm going to make the wild guess that you are not omniscient, nor do you have access to classified CIA intelligence that the President might, in fact, posess. I don't think you should be calling an act evil when your knowledge is limited to that which has been supplied to the media, when perhaps the decision to go to war in Iraq could have been made for reasons of which you know nothing.

UrLord wrote:

However, the fact that he cherry-picked data to justify a war that has so far cost 900 american lives and many many times more Iraqi civilians is IMHO an evil act.

*sigh* You're calling the War on Iraq evil because as far as you know, there is no good reason to justify it? Do you assume that you know EVERYthing about the situation? I'm going to make the wild guess that you are not omniscient, nor do you have access to classified CIA intelligence that the President might, in fact, posess. I don't think you should be calling an act evil when your knowledge is limited to that which has been supplied to the media, when perhaps the decision to go to war in Iraq could have been made for reasons of which you know nothing.

You guess incorrectly as well as wildly.

My omiscience is well-documented.

As far as the president and what he knows or does not know...now that science is allowing man to read the minds of chimps...perhaps we will find out what the bloody hell he was (and still may be) thinking.

In fairness to me, your assertion that the media is to blame for the seeming incompetence by the Bush clan is goofier than Revan's most lame posting (now THAT'S goofy!). You opine that the media is being spoon-fed cheery picked facts...even if it is true...just who the heck do you think is DOING the spoon feeding? The administration struggles daily to put the best possible spin on things, ignoring outright where possible injuries and deaths on both sides of the conflict.

I'm sure there is plenty they know I don't, but relativism does not change the evil of an act. Again, I doubt Bush himself is an evil man. Merely one misguided by religious zeal and meglomania.

No, that wasn't at all what I was saying about the media, you misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that the media doesn't have ALL the facts, and unless you've been doing investigations of your own, the only facts you have access to are (though not necessarily all) the ones the media has access to. Thus, you can only form an incomplete idea of what is happening. What I'm suggesting is that there MAY be alternate (and very good) reasons why we went to war, but for whatever reason those reasons had to remain classified, so the American public only learns part of the story.

This isn't about "relativism." This is about how making moral judgments is irresponsible when you don't know the whole story.

But you can never know "the whole story." Therefor, you can never make a moral judgement. I believe, this is the foundation for Gunslinger's remark about moral relativism.

The best any of us can do is gather as much information as possible and make a decision from there.