interesting.

personally i avoid using that overused and misused term `evil'

(Reply) (Thread)

This is partly why I liked the book, because that was exactly my view. I thought it was unhelpful to use the term because it was simply objectifying another person, reducing them to a thing. Now I feel that 'evil' is a marker for failure of imagination. That makes it very dangerous word, and one I'll try to avoid using, but it gives me a better understanding of why it's dangerous. Hope that makes some kind of sense. I do know what you mean.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Does that mean that if I *can* imagine myself torturing a little old lady (and I probably could if I made the effort), then doing so would no longer be evil?

And if I can't imagine myself participating in a gay biker sex and drugs orgy (because I certainly can't), then anyone who pitches in with ga... er, gleeful abandon is commiting an evil act?

I don't think so.

(Reply) (Thread)

By 'imagine' in this case I think he is talking about social modelling, not imagining yourself literally doing 'it'. The difference between putting youself in the shoes of Jack the Ripper and one of his victims - neither of whom you would ever resemble, but one of whom you can model in terms of desperate poverty and need.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd take a totally different route and say that 'evil' is what is culturally alien to us. It's a way of labelling the enemy.

'They' are cannibals, homosexuals, communists, Muslims, etc.

It just depends on the current dominant culture and who opposes it. Some facet of them will turn out to be 'evil'.

(Reply) (Thread)

Morton does talk about this. Witches are an example. Paradoxically by invoking a term like 'evil' to describe an enemy we make it easier to do evil things to them. It's a terrible vicious circle.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

*gulp* hope it doesn't disappoint

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This week's Spooks was the 'torture the man or else the bomb goes off' dilemma.

As for 'lack of imagination': common or garden selfishness or thoughtlessness I guess can indeed be put down to lack of imagination (or more, I would say, empathy), but some cruelties seem to have had a quite terrifying amount of imaginative effort put into them. And I don't just mean the Really Big Evils, I mean just as much the level of empathy (and abuse of it) that's needed to make sure that something really hurts someone else.

(Reply) (Thread)

'torture the man or else the bomb goes off' dilemma.

You know I'm not in favour of censorship, but I really think this one pop cultural trope has caused more harm than any other. Writers ought to take the problem of torture really seriously, and start to produce new and better plot lines on the subject. Honestly, I think it has become as damaging as, say, casual racial stereotyping, which no respectable writer would consider any more.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh yes, yes, yes. They try to justify torture by holding it up as a means of extracting information quickly, but it's a hollow argument when there already exist a number of drugs which can be used to reduce inhibitions and confuse people, and therefore all they need is a good questioner. With drugs like that, what do they need torture for? It's just sadistic.
Of course one could argue that using drugs is just psychological torture, but it doesn't seem as cruel to me.
And I could, in my ignorance, have too high an expectation of the efficiency of drugs, too, but surely it would take a lot of effort and time and pain to torture someone who is fanatical enough to set a bomb? I mean, to torture them enough that they would give in, considering how highly motivated they must be.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmmmm. But if it is less cruel, is it less of a violation of human rights?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Compared to the way the same dilemma was dramatized in Battlestar Galactica the following night (badly), I thought Spooks did a good job. The plotline was interspersed with clips of the boss being interviewed for a more senior position, in which he was asked questions about ends and means, and giving answers.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Morton suggests that we often make evil inhuman (as in Buffy) to help us to overcome the inhibition against modelling it.

But on the other hand there are well established literary genres (crime and thrillers, for example) where the 'evil' is perpetrated by very human actors.

A book I read some years back, 'Dark Nature: A Biology of Evil' by Lyall Watson, tried to identify a biological basis for evil. It didn't come to any really useful conclusions, though it did provide the most convincing account I've seen for the Jamie Bulger murder.

You always run into the brick wall of defining evil in the first place. You can't really discuss it until you've defined it. Morton's theory doesn't seem to help - 'actions we are inhibited from modelling' is just a jazzed up way of saying 'nasty things we don't think people should do'. Doesn't say anything about *why* we might be inhibited from modelling them, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere until we understand the why. Which I think (though you will probably disagree) has little to do with philosophy and a lot to do with biology.

(Reply) (Thread)

The timing of this is interesting, since I've just come to the conclusion that culture is more important than law, in determining the peacefulness of a society. Because culture determines/influences what is unthinkable, and if something is unthinkable, then (most) people don't think of doing it.

Law is always catching up to culture; it's culture that comes first.

(Reply) (Thread)

culture is more important than law,

Yes, I'm sure you're right

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Morton suggests that we often make evil inhuman (as in Buffy) to help us to overcome the inhibition against modelling it.

But on the other hand there are well established literary genres (crime and thrillers, for example) where the 'evil' is perpetrated by very human actors. Turning to genres in which evil can be dehumanised (as orcs, vampires, aliens etc) might say more about the writer - and readers - than the nature of evil.

A book I read some years back, 'Dark Nature: A Biology of Evil' by Lyall Watson, tried to identify a biological basis for evil. It didn't come to any really useful conclusions, though it did provide the most convincing account I've seen for the Jamie Bulger murder.

You always run into the brick wall of defining evil in the first place. You can't really discuss it until you've defined it. Morton's theory doesn't seem to help - 'actions we are inhibited from modelling' is just a jazzed up way of saying 'nasty things we don't think people should do'. Doesn't say anything about *why* we might be inhibited from modelling them, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere until we understand the why. Which I think (though you will probably disagree) has little to do with philosophy and a lot to do with biology.

(Reply) (Thread)

it did provide the most convincing account I've seen for the Jamie Bulger murder

What was that?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That Bulger was a surrogate for Thomson's stepbrother, who was of comparable age, but who also had a 25% genetic share with Thomson. If Thomson were to murder the stepbrother (whom he loathed, apparently), he would have been eliminating his own genes, so someone else had to stand in.

I don't think this is particularly far-fetched. We know, for example, that children are about 7 times more likely to be murdered by a step-parent than a natural parent (against an overall background in which children are not very likely to be murdered by either), so citing genetic protectionism strikes me as eminently reasonable.

Venables was dragged in simply to share the burden of guilt. Thomson knew damn well he was doing wrong. It's not an uncommon pattern - Brady conscripted Hindley for much the same reason, and the same process can be seen in the Leopold/Loeb case (though I forget which was which in that instance).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Very interesting; I'll have to give it more thought. There was a long history of violent abuse in Thompson's family also, IIRC? (Both parents from violent families, violence between the father and the mother, between the parents and the children, between the children themselves.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh yes - it was a very dysfunctional family.

What I find unforgivable about Thompson is not what he did to Jamie Bulger, but his charming habit of tying cats to railway lines. If it was down to me I'd have him shot for that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So Matthew Pinsent must be one of the most evil human beings on the planet. I cannot imagine training to the same intensity for so long, for comparatively scant rewards. (Trust me on this -- I know what the training is like. The rewards really are feeble by comparison.)

(Reply) (Thread)

You can't imagine yourself doing it in real life, but you can model it.

know what the training is like. The rewards really are feeble by comparison

That's modelling it. You are weighing up the pros and cons.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think I get it.

Hm. Will have to think about that. I still think I can weigh up the pros and cons of even the most hideous act.

Perhaps there is a qualitative difference, but I'm not sure. The thesis doesn't seem quite right.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The difference seems to be that a visceral emotional reaction inhibits modelling. So it's not the inhibited modelling per se that is the hallmark of evil, but the visceral emotional reaction.

Am I missing a trick here?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, I think maia makes the point well in the next comment

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)