I like how you asked the fellow about the opposite extreme—about good people. Seems that threw him for an intellectual loop. Our egos get in the way. Especially when engaged in intellectual conversations. We want to be right. To be smart. It's hard to tamp down our ego and remain open-minded. To acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.
Another, more romantic way of thinking about evil is as a privation—not necessarily the opposite of good, but the absence of it. Similar to how “cold” is not a substance in itself, but the lack of heat. Or perhaps an even better analogy when discussing good and evil: darkness as the absence of light. In this view, the concept of “irredeemable people” might be resolved.
That's an intriguing description. My sense is that it comes close to implying the 'default' as good—which certainly would be a romantic perspective as you wrote. Thank you for the comment, James.
We could talk about Thomas Aquinas, who analyzed this concept from the broadest metaphysical understanding to the most individual terms of moral action. He thought of evil as part of the natural world, not something to eradicate. (found in his "Summa Theologiae".) The Stoics also. Marcus Aurelius thought evil act were a product of ignorance of what is right and wrong, or an intentional failure to achieve virtue.
While I wasn't there to dissect his tone or approach, I suspect he was actually questioning his own morality. I find that most people who ask that question want to know where they slot on the scale. Are they capable of doing the unthinkable. But if you were to ask directly he would say he is basically good because most people are basically good, which incedentally is not a belief I hold.
I think it can be interesting to approach evil or good without religion because it requires unpacking the brutality of intersubjective morality. That tends to be the morality people adhere to without realizing what it means to bend to the will of the majority and what atrocities that causes. Alas, I don't go to dinner parties, so I have to live through yours. 😁
"...I suspect he was actually questioning his own morality. I find that most people who ask that question want to know where they slot on the scale."
I do think it's possible to ask that question or similar questions without having any personal stakes, but that is a useful point. Talking about others is a good way of talking about yourself—even if it is unconscious, or implicit, in the subject. Thank you for the comment and for adding those thoughts, Brian.
I like how you asked the fellow about the opposite extreme—about good people. Seems that threw him for an intellectual loop. Our egos get in the way. Especially when engaged in intellectual conversations. We want to be right. To be smart. It's hard to tamp down our ego and remain open-minded. To acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.
Yes, that's certainly true and too easy, in the moment, to forget. Thank you for the comment, John.
Another, more romantic way of thinking about evil is as a privation—not necessarily the opposite of good, but the absence of it. Similar to how “cold” is not a substance in itself, but the lack of heat. Or perhaps an even better analogy when discussing good and evil: darkness as the absence of light. In this view, the concept of “irredeemable people” might be resolved.
That's an intriguing description. My sense is that it comes close to implying the 'default' as good—which certainly would be a romantic perspective as you wrote. Thank you for the comment, James.
We could talk about Thomas Aquinas, who analyzed this concept from the broadest metaphysical understanding to the most individual terms of moral action. He thought of evil as part of the natural world, not something to eradicate. (found in his "Summa Theologiae".) The Stoics also. Marcus Aurelius thought evil act were a product of ignorance of what is right and wrong, or an intentional failure to achieve virtue.
Thank you for the comment and for adding your thoughts here, Camila. Aquinas is definitely a worthwhile voice on this subject.
While I wasn't there to dissect his tone or approach, I suspect he was actually questioning his own morality. I find that most people who ask that question want to know where they slot on the scale. Are they capable of doing the unthinkable. But if you were to ask directly he would say he is basically good because most people are basically good, which incedentally is not a belief I hold.
I think it can be interesting to approach evil or good without religion because it requires unpacking the brutality of intersubjective morality. That tends to be the morality people adhere to without realizing what it means to bend to the will of the majority and what atrocities that causes. Alas, I don't go to dinner parties, so I have to live through yours. 😁
"...I suspect he was actually questioning his own morality. I find that most people who ask that question want to know where they slot on the scale."
I do think it's possible to ask that question or similar questions without having any personal stakes, but that is a useful point. Talking about others is a good way of talking about yourself—even if it is unconscious, or implicit, in the subject. Thank you for the comment and for adding those thoughts, Brian.
That was a dinner party - one will not forget! 💭
Thank you for the comment.